Trans Mountain Report Shrew Condition 44

PACIFIC WATER SHREW MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT NEB CONDITION 44

May 2017 REV 1 687945 01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 R1

Prepared for:

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Ph: 403-514-6400 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE OF CONCORDANCE National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 44 is applicable to the following legal instruments: OC-064 (CPCN), AO-003-OC-2 (OC2), XO-T260-007-2016 (Temp), XO-T260-008-2016 (Pump 1) and XO-T260-009-2016 (Pump 2). Table 1 describes how this Plan addresses the Condition requirements applicable to Project activities.

TABLE 1

LEGAL INSTRUMENT CONCORDANCE WITH NEB CONDITION 44: WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION PLANS

OC-064 AO-003-OC-2 XO-T260-007-2016 XO-T260-008-2016 XO-T260-009-2016 NEB Condition 44 (CPCN) (OC2) (Temp) (Pump1) (Pump2) Trans Mountain must file with the NEB for approval, at least 4 months prior to commencing construction, Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans for Section 4.0 of this Plan N/A - this legal instrument does not Section 4.0 of this Plan N/A - this legal instrument does not N/A - this legal instrument does not each species whose draft, candidate, proposed, or final critical habitat is directly or indirectly affected by the Project. Each plan must include have a Project interaction with the have a Project interaction with the have a Project interaction with the a) a summary of supplementary pre-construction survey results, including surveys for biophysical attributes of critical habitat; final critical habitat for Pacific final critical habitat for Pacific final critical habitat for Pacific water shrew, as described in water shrew, as described in water shrew, as described in Section 3.2 of this Plan. Section 3.2 of this Plan. Section 3.2 of this Plan. b) the location and type of critical habitat, for those wildlife species with early draft and candidate critical habitat, including a description of the biophysical attributes, N/A – critical habitat is final, as See above. N/A – critical habitat is final, as See above. See above. potentially directly and indirectly affected by the Project; described in Section 1.0 of this described in Section 1.0 of this Plan. Plan. c) the location, types and total spatial area for each type of critical habitat for those wildlife species with proposed or final critical habitat, including a description of the Section 3.2 and 4.2 of this Plan See above. Section 3.2 and 4.2 of this Plan See above. See above. biophysical attributes, potentially directly and indirectly affected by the Project; d) a detailed description of measures that will be used to avoid the destruction of critical habitat; Section 5.1 of this Plan. See above. Section 5.1 of this Plan. See above. See above. e) a detailed description of mitigation and habitat restoration measures to be implemented to reduce direct and indirect Project effects on critical habitat, including all relevant Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this Plan. See above. Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this Plan. See above. See above. measures committed to throughout the OH-001-2014 proceeding, any new mitigation measures resulting from supplementary surveys, detailed criteria using clear and unambiguous language that describes the circumstances under which each measure will be applied, and measurable targets for evaluating mitigation and critical habitat restoration success; f) identification and review of alternative mitigation and habitat restoration measures to avoid or lessen direct and indirect Project effects on critical habitat, and the rationale Section 5.0 of this Plan. See above. Section 5.0 of this Plan. See above. See above. for the selected measure(s); g) detailed description of how selected mitigation and critical habitat restoration measures address the potential for time lags between when the Project impacts occur and Section 5.2 of this Plan. See above. Section 5.2 of this Plan. See above. See above. when mitigation and critical habitat restoration measures are implemented and are fully functional; h) details on post-construction monitoring of mitigation measures and critical habitat restoration measures, including survey methods, corrective measures, detailed criteria Section 7.0 of this Plan. See above. Section 7.0 of this Plan. See above. See above. using clear and unambiguous language that describes the circumstances under which each measure will be applied, and a proposed reporting schedule; i) details on how the mitigation, critical habitat restoration measures, and monitoring measures are consistent with applicable recovery strategies and action plans; Sections 1.4 and 3.3 of this Plan See above. Sections 1.4 and 3.3 of this Plan See above. See above. j) a commitment to include the results of the monitoring in the post-construction environmental monitoring (PCEM) reports filed under Condition No. 151; Section 7.4 of this Plan. See above. Section 7.4 of this Plan. See above. See above. k) a description of how Trans Mountain has taken available and applicable Aboriginal traditional land use (TLU) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into consideration Sections 1.2, Appendices A and B See above. Sections 1.2, Appendices A and B See above. See above. in developing the plans including demonstration that those Aboriginal persons and groups that provided Aboriginal traditional land use information and traditional ecological of this Plan. of this Plan. knowledge, as reported during the OH-001-2014 proceeding and/or pursuant to Condition 97, had the opportunity to review and comment on the information; l) a summary of its consultations with Appropriate Government Authorities, any species experts, potentially affected Aboriginal groups and affected landowner/tenants. In its Section 2.0 and Appendix B of this See above. Section 2.0 and Appendix B of this See above. See above. summary, Trans Mountain must provide a description and justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any Plan. Plan. recommendations from those consulted, into the plan; and m) confirmation that Trans Mountain will update the relevant Environmental Protection Plan(s) (EPP) to include any relevant information from the Wildlife Species at Risk Section 5.0 of this Plan. See above. Section 5.0 of this Plan. See above. See above. Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page i

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan (the Plan) was prepared to address the requirements of National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 44 that requests a Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan for each species whose early draft, candidate, proposed or final critical habitat is directly or indirectly affected by the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“the Project” or “TMEP”). Pacific water shrew is listed as Endangered under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act and by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and red-listed in British Columbia. A portion of the pipeline route crosses two areas identified as final critical habitat by Environment and Climate Change Canada (formerly Environment Canada) for a total of 3.4 km, located in the area of South of Clayburn Creek (near Sumas Mountain) and Fraser Heights (near Surrey Bend Regional Park). The primary Project interaction with Pacific water shrew is expected to be habitat alteration (e.g., vegetation clearing in riparian habitat, removal of cover, foraging and nesting objects). There is also potential for changes to movement (e.g., temporary displacement due to sensory disturbance, barriers or filters to movement) and increased mortality risk to shrews. Field work to collect information on the presence/absence of biophysical attributes of critical habitat relative to the pipeline route in these areas was conducted in June 2014, August/September 2015 and October 2016. Given the importance of natural streams, wetlands and channelized watercourses, these features were selected for focused review. There were 23 potential watercourse crossings identified along the pipeline route based on a desktop review (i.e., nine in South of Clayburn Creek and 14 in Fraser Heights). Based on the field work, many of the locations identified during the desktop review were found to lack a channel with water that was continuous for approximately 1.5 km in length. Although overland flow, standing water and vegetated swales (non-classified drainages) were identified, they lacked a continuous defined channel and riparian vegetation and in some cases were associated with wetlands, run-off drainages along the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline right-of-way or road-side ditches. Eight of the 14 watercourse crossings within the Fraser Heights area overlap with two wetlands and are therefore considered part of the wetland rather than individual watercourses in this Plan. Overall, five watercourses and two wetlands were identified as having suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and aquatic characteristics. The application of trenchless crossings (horizontal directional drill) in the Fraser Heights area will avoid two watercourse crossings and two wetlands. This Plan demonstrates Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC’s (Trans Mountain) commitment to avoid and mitigate Project effects on Pacific water shrew and their habitat through application of mitigation and restoration measures. Following a hierarchy of mitigative actions, Trans Mountain has considered measures to avoid Project effects to Pacific water shrew and their critical habitat where site conditions and construction constraints allow and will apply appropriate measures to minimize Project effects, followed by implementation of habitat restoration measures. Mitigation measures developed as part of this Plan include, but are not limited to, Pacific water shrew salvage prior to construction, implementation of reduced ground disturbance construction techniques where site conditions allow, retention of mature trees in riparian areas where feasible, salvage and replacement of coarse woody debris, and implementation of habitat restoration measures to reduce the residual effect of the Project on habitat alteration. Measurable goals and targets, as well as details on Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM) to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and habitat restoration measures are provided. The Plan was developed in consideration of the current regulatory policies specific to Pacific water shrew including the Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in Canada, provincial best management practices and consultation with Appropriate Government Authorities and species-technical experts. Applicable Aboriginal traditional land use (TLU) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) are also incorporated. This Plan will be included as part of the Environmental Management Plans (Section 6.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and summarized and updated in Section 4.0 of Volume 7 of the Environmental Plans to ensure that the mitigation and restoration measures are implemented. Additionally, the results of PCEM for Pacific water shrew will be provided in the PCEM reports to be filed by Trans Mountain as per NEB Condition 151.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page ii

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONCORDANCE ...... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use ...... 2 1.3 Mitigation Hierarchy ...... 2 1.4 Objective and Measurable Goals ...... 3 1.5 Commitment Management ...... 3 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 4 3.0 CONTEXT AND APPROACH ...... 5 3.1 Ecology and Project Effects ...... 5 3.2 Project Interaction ...... 6 3.3 Regulatory Context ...... 12 3.3.1 Provincial Regulatory Policy and Guidance ...... 12 3.3.2 Federal Regulatory Policy and Guidance ...... 12 3.3.3 Alignment with Available Regulatory Policy and Guidance ...... 13 4.0 WILDLIFE FIELD WORK ...... 14 4.1 Methods ...... 14 4.2 Results ...... 14 5.0 MITIGATION ...... 23 5.1 Avoid ...... 23 5.1.1 Project Routing...... 23 5.1.2 Project Scheduling ...... 24 5.2 Minimize and Restore On-site ...... 24 5.3 Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Measures ...... 26 6.0 MEASURING MITIGATION AND RESTORATION SUCCESS ...... 35 7.0 MONITORING ...... 36 7.1 Monitoring Timeframe ...... 36 7.2 Monitoring Strategy ...... 36 7.2.1 Habitat Restoration Monitoring ...... 36 7.2.2 Mortality Monitoring ...... 38 7.3 Corrective Measures ...... 38 7.4 Reporting ...... 39 8.0 CONCLUSION ...... 40 9.0 REFERENCES ...... 41 9.1 Personal Communication ...... 41 9.2 Literature Cited ...... 41 9.3 GIS References ...... 42

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Summary of Relevant TEK and TLU Activities for Traditional Territories that Cross Final Critical Habitat for Pacific Water Shrew ...... A-1 Appendix B Consultation and Engagement ...... B-1 Appendix C Record of Stakeholder Notifications of Plan ...... C-1

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page iii Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Pacific Water Shrew Critical Habitat – South of Clayburn Creek ...... 10 Figure 2 Pacific Water Shrew Critical Habitat – Fraser Heights ...... 11 Figure 3 Retention and Replacement of Biophysical Features/Attributes of Critical Habitat for Pacific Water Shrew ...... 34 Figure 4 Adaptive Approach to the Application of Corrective Measures ...... 38

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Legal Instrument Concordance with NEB Condition 44: Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans ...... i Table 2 Summary of Direct Project Interaction with Final Critical Habitat for Pacific Water Shrew ...... 7 Table 3 Biophysical Attributes of Critical Habitat for Pacific Water Shrew ...... 16 Table 4 Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Measures for Areas with the Biophysical Attributes of Critical Habitat ...... 27 Table 5 Performance Indicators and Measurable Targets for Pacific Water Shrew ...... 35 Table 6 Monitoring Strategy ...... 36 Table 7 Corrective Actions ...... 39 Table B-1 Summary of Public Consultation - May 2012 to June 20151 ...... B-2 Table B-2 Summary of Regulatory Consultation Activities Related to Pacific Water Shrew (May 2012 to June 2015) ...... B-4 Table B-3 Summary of Regulatory Consultation Activities Related to Pacific Water Shrew (July 2015 to February 2017) ...... B-8 Table B-4 Summary of Aboriginal Concerns Regarding Wildlife Species at Risk ...... B-10

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page iv

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan (the Plan) was prepared to address the requirements of National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 44 for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“the Project” or “TMEP”) where it encounters candidate critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. The Plan was submitted to Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and species experts on September 16, 2016 for review. Feedback was requested by January 13, 2017, although additional feedback was considered up until February 2017. No feedback specific to this Plan was received during this period.

Since the September 16, 2016 release of the draft Plan, engineering design has continued to progress and there have been design updates that are described in detail in the TMEP Fall 2016 Project Updates (www.transmountain.com/environmental-plans). All of the design updates have been reviewed, and the Project design updates that are relevant have been incorporated into this Plan.

This Plan has been prepared to describe planning considerations, mitigation and reclamation measures to reduce potential effects of the Project on Pacific water shrew and their habitat. Pacific water shrew is listed as Endangered under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada [GoC] 2017) and by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2017), and is red-listed in British Columbia (BC) (BC Conservation Data Centre [CDC] 2017). The pipeline route crosses two areas identified as final critical habitat by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC; formerly Environment Canada [EC]) (EC 2014a, 2015a) for a total of 3.4 km. These are located in the area of South of Clayburn Creek (near Sumas Mountain) and Fraser Heights (near Surrey Bend Regional Park).

1.1 Project Description Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) filed its Facilities Application (the Application) with the NEB in December 2013. In developing its Application, Trans Mountain commenced an engagement and communications program of extensive discussions with landowners, engagement with Aboriginal groups and consultation with affected stakeholders. This program was intended to gather input from these groups into the Application and supporting Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA), and to continue to assist Trans Mountain in the design and execution of the Project. Trans Mountain is also working with Appropriate Government Authorities to carry out the necessary reviews, studies and assessments required for the Project.

For ease of description, the following terms are used.

Kilometre Post (KP): describes distances measured along the centreline of the pipeline.

Project Footprint: includes the area directly disturbed by surveying, construction, clean-up and operation of the pipeline, as well as associated physical works and activities (including the temporary construction lands and infrastructure, the pipeline, reactivation, facilities, the Westridge Marine Terminal and access roads). For clarity, specific components of the Project Footprint are further described by Trans Mountain below.

• Temporary construction lands and infrastructure refers to preparatory works to support Project construction and includes temporary camps, stockpile sites, equipment staging areas and borrow pits, as well as access roads within the first 10 km of each designated construction spread. For ease of assessing Project interactions, these access roads are considered as part of the overall access road network.

• Pipeline construction footprint refers to the total area used to construct the pipeline and includes the right-of-way and temporary workspace (TWS).

• Reactivation of currently deactivated pipeline segments include an engineering assessment under Section 45 of the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulation and associated construction activities. Currently known ground disturbance activities and associated access (as of December 2016), were assessed to determine the Project interactions. For ease of assessing Project interactions, these access roads were considered as part of the overall access road network.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

• Facilities refer to pump stations, terminals (Edmonton, Sumas and Burnaby), and associated infrastructure (i.e., traps), most of which are located on land that has been previously disturbed. Westridge Marine Terminal has infrastructure located on land and in the marine environment, and is included in the Facilities component of the Project.

• Access roads include new temporary and permanent roads and existing roads that may require upgrades or improvements. For ease of assessing Project interactions, this includes the access roads to be developed as part of temporary construction lands and infrastructure, as well as those associated with reactivation.

Contingency Alternate Routes: refer to three alternate pipeline route segments that have been identified and assessed for use if construction on the preferred route is not feasible. These are not included in the Project Footprint defined above since they are considered contingency alternates.

• Raft River, in BC (KP 713.1 to KP 714.4), is an alternate open cut contingency alignment. The preferred primary crossing method, a horizontal directional drill (HDD), does not support an open cut contingency crossing method at the same location.

• Pembina River, in Alberta (KP 133.1 to KP 134.7), is an alternate open cut contingency alignment. Similar to Raft River, the preferred primary crossing method (HDD) does not support an open cut contingency crossing method at the same location.

• Westridge Delivery Lines (WDLs) (WDL KP 0.0 to WDL KP 3.4) is an alternate contingency alignment for a trenched installation around the Burnaby Conservation Area in BC. The preferred pipeline corridor requires tunnel construction and does not support a trenched contingency option; therefore, an alternate trenched contingency alignment has been identified.

Variances: as part of the Project Footprint update that occurred in December 2016, a number of route revisions located outside of the Project corridor were identified. Trans Mountain is in the process of seeking approval from the NEB in 2017 for these route realignments. All of the variances have been reviewed in consideration of impacts to this Plan and revisions related to the Fraser Heights area were required as a result, as well as minor adjustments to KP ranges, where applicable.

1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal groups who might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project, based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. Appendix A provides a summary of Aboriginal participation in wildlife field work as well as traditional land use (TLU) opportunities for Aboriginal groups whose traditional territories cross critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. The wildlife field work listed in Appendix A includes a variety of wildlife survey types (e.g., breeding bird, amphibian) and are not specific to Pacific water shrew, nor are the surveys specific to the area of Pacific water shrew critical habitat. To date, no TLU or traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) feedback regarding Pacific water shrew has been provided by Aboriginal groups. Appendix B provides more detail on the engagement process.

1.3 Mitigation Hierarchy Throughout all stages of the development of this Plan, Trans Mountain has applied the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize and restore on-site as described in the Policy and Procedures for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (BC Ministry of Environment [BC MOE] 2014a,b). Following this hierarchy, Trans Mountain has considered measures to avoid direct and indirect Project effects on Pacific water shrew and their critical habitat where site conditions and construction constraints allow. Where effects cannot be avoided, appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate Project effects, and restore habitat on-site to alleviate the Project’s residual effects will be implemented. The last step of the mitigation hierarchy is offsets. This step is only appropriate if residual impacts remain even after measures to avoid, minimize, and/or restore on-site have been taken. The determination of offsets is the responsibility of the province (BC MOE 2014a,b). Trans Mountain will maintain ongoing consultation with the province during the development, implementation and monitoring components of this Plan. Trans

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Mountain is required by the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) as per Condition 16 to prepare a Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Preliminary Offset Plan that is due at least six months before the commencement of operations. A final offset plan is required if monitoring of habitats indicates that impacts remain after five years following the commencement of operations.

Measures to avoid, minimize and restore on-site are provided in Section 5.0.

1.4 Objective and Measurable Goals The objective of this Plan is to avoid or mitigate potential Project effects on areas that possess the biophysical attributes of critical habitat within the mapped areas of Pacific water shrew critical habitat.

The measurable goals for this plan are defined based on the recovery objectives and approaches outlined in the final Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in Canada (the federal Recovery Strategy; EC 2014b), and the likely Project interactions with biophysical attributes of critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. The measurable goals are specific to locations with the biophysical attributes of critical habitat for Pacific water shrew.

The measurable goals of the Plan are to:

1. restore vegetation in disturbed habitat to natural vegetation communities that provide a moist microenvironment (where present prior to construction); 2. restore watercourse characteristics that provide a suitable aquatic environment; 3. retain or replace instream and riparian coarse woody debris; and 4. avoid mortality of Pacific water shrew during construction and operations.

These goals align with the federal Recovery Strategy goals and objectives that target protection and restoration of habitat and maintenance of current populations. Refer to Section 3.3 for information on regulatory guidelines and policies.

The performance indicators and targets that will be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation in achieving these goals are described in Section 6.0.

1.5 Commitment Management Trans Mountain made a number of commitments regarding the Project during the OH-001-2014 proceedings and engagement activities up to May 2016. Commitments were made to improve and optimize Project planning and mitigation measures. As Trans Mountain has consolidated its commitments into a Commitments Tracking Table in accordance with NEB Condition 6, the table of commitments in each plan has been removed.

The updated Commitments Tracking Table was filed with the NEB pursuant to NEB Condition 6 and is available on Trans Mountain’s web site at https://www.transmountain.com/commitments-tracking. Trans Mountain continues to monitor and track compliance with its commitments and will update, post to its website and file with the NEB updated versions of the Commitments Tracking Table according to the timeframes outlined in NEB Condition 6. Commitments with specific relevance to this Plan have been considered and incorporated into this Plan.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT Consultation and engagement activities related to Pacific water shrew and their habitat were conducted between May 2012 and February 2017 with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, species experts, and affected landowners/tenants. Opportunities to discuss Pacific water shrew and their habitat and issues or concerns were provided to public stakeholders through online information, workshops, meetings and ongoing engagement activities during the reporting period. Appendix B includes a comprehensive record of these engagement activities, stakeholder feedback and Trans Mountain responses.

The draft Plan was released on September 16, 2016 for review. Feedback was requested by January 13, 2017, although additional Appropriate Government Authority and potentially affected Aboriginal group feedback was considered up until February 2017. No feedback specific to this Plan was received during this period.

Engineering design changes were issued in the TMEP Fall 2016 Project Update document (www.transmountain.com/environmental-plans) along with a request for feedback. Minor revisions to this Plan related to the Fraser Heights area were required as a result of the design updates, as well as minor adjustments to the KP ranges.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

3.0 CONTEXT AND APPROACH This section summarizes the ecological and regulatory context of the Project’s potential interaction (direct and indirect) with Pacific water shrew, which is the basis and rationale for the approach taken in the development of this Plan. Potential Project effects on Pacific water shrew were assessed in the original ESA (Section 7.2.10, Filing ID A3S1Q9) and in response to GoC – EC Information Request (IR) 2.035 (Filing ID A4H6A5). Potential Project effects are discussed in Section 3.1; however, this section is not intended to provide a formal assessment. Refer to the original ESA and GoC EC IR 2.035 for more detail and definitions of assessment criteria.

3.1 Ecology and Project Effects In Canada, Pacific water shrew is found in the Fraser River valley, and its known range is bounded by Point Grey (Vancouver, BC) to the west, the Chilliwack Valley to the east, and Squamish to the north (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection [MWLAP] 2004, COSEWIC 2006, Pacific Water Shrew Recovery Team [PWSRT] 2009). Primary threats to Pacific water shrew include habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation from urban development, forestry and agriculture (EC 2014b). Activities that are likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat include removal of some or all riparian vegetation, removal of coarse woody debris from the riparian understorey, alteration of watercourses and/or wetland areas, release of pollutants into watercourses and installation of impassable barriers (Craig et al. 2010, EC 2014b).

Pacific water shrew are riparian specialists and occur within streamside riparian zones, marshes, wetlands, and dense wet forests. Pacific water shrew will use all forest structural stages except clear-cuts, although capture data suggests they prefer older forests (COSEWIC 2006). Woody debris is an important habitat feature for Pacific water shrew as it provides cover, nesting, foraging sites and travel corridors. Pacific water shrews are primarily insectivorous, often foraging on aquatic prey in slow-moving creeks and wetlands (BC MWLAP 2004). Although shrews will forage underwater, prey is always consumed on land (BC MWLAP 2004). Studies suggest that the breeding season for Pacific water shrew extends from January to August (EC 2014b). Females likely bear two to three litters per year with a litter size of approximately three to seven (PWSRT 2009).

Vegetation clearing associated with the Project, including removal of downed wood, will affect riparian forest and wetland vegetation, and may alter suitable habitat that provides cover and a moist microenvironment, as well as terrestrial foraging opportunities (i.e., terrestrial invertebrates). Removal of riparian vegetation can also affect water temperature that may result in adverse impacts to aquatic insects, which are an important prey source for shrews (EC 2014b). Given the importance of riparian habitats to Pacific water shrew, measures to minimize and restore disturbed riparian vegetation and habitat features (e.g., coarse woody debris) are a focus of this Plan.

Watercourse crossings associated with the Project will temporarily disturb aquatic habitat and may alter hydrology and water quality (e.g., siltation). However, with the implementation of appropriate watercourse crossing and erosion control measures, potential changes in instream habitat, as well as water quality associated with siltation can be effectively mitigated.

Information on the dispersal abilities and home range of Pacific water shrew is very limited (EC 2014b). Pacific water shrew appears to use moist forest, however their ability to travel through fragmented, non-forested or dry forest habitat is poorly understood. Pacific water shrew typically use habitat up to 60 m from a watercourse and the length of watercourse required to support a population is suggested to be approximately 1.5 km (EC 2014b). The cleared Project Footprint may act as a barrier or filter to Pacific water shrew movement until sufficient cover (i.e., vegetation and downed wood) is re-established within the Project Footprint. During the construction phase, Project activities may also create temporary barriers to movement (e.g., spoil piles, brush piles, open trench) and temporarily displace individuals as a result of sensory disturbance.

Project-related activities may also influence Pacific water shrew mortality risk in the event that an adult or nest is inadvertently destroyed during construction. Removal of riparian habitat reduces cover from predation which may also increase mortality risk for Pacific water shrew (EC 2014b).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

3.2 Project Interaction Information on the specific components of the Project Footprint as defined in Section 1.1 (temporary construction lands and infrastructure, pipeline construction footprint, reactivation, facilities, access roads, contingency alternate routes and variances) is provided below. The length and area of direct Project interaction of the pipeline route with Pacific water shrew critical habitat is summarized in Table 2. Figures 1 and 2 show the Project within the areas of critical habitat crossed.

Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure Pacific water shrew critical habitat does not interact with temporary construction lands and infrastructure.

Pipeline Construction Footprint The length and area of the pipeline route within areas of Pacific water shrew critical habitat provided by ECCC is provided in Table 2. Given that Pacific water shrews are riparian specialists that rely on an area of water (natural stream, wetland, permanent, ephemeral or intermittent channelized watercourse), the locations of watercourse crossings within each critical habitat polygon are provided. This information is based on a combination of desktop review, collaboration with Project engineers and aquatic specialists using available information such as provincial mapping, LiDAR, aerial photography and topographic maps, as well as field information collected to date. Table 2 lists all the potential watercourse crossings identified through this exercise. Further information on the presence of biophysical attributes of critical habitat for Pacific water shrew for each of these watercourse crossings is provided in Section 4.0.

The critical habitat for Pacific water shrew in the areas of South Clayburn Creek and Fraser Heights is based on previous occurrence records. One Pacific water shrew was recorded in the vicinity of Clayburn Creek in 1995, and four were recorded in the area of Fraser Heights in 2009 and 2011 (BC CDC 2014).

The primary pipeline crossing method for the watercourses in South of Clayburn listed in Table 2 is open cut or an isolation crossing technique if water is present. The feasibility of a trenchless crossing was investigated at the unnamed channel immediately east of McKee Road in South of Clayburn Creek area (BC-729). This area is constrained by the HDD of McKee Road, steeply sloping terrain on either side of the channel, and proximity to the residential development located east of the unnamed channel (Figure 1). A trenchless crossing was determined not to be feasible at this watercourse crossing.

Within Fraser Heights, trenchless crossings (HDD) are planned to avoid two wetlands (flat swamp and basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp). Two watercourses located immediately adjacent to these wetlands will also be avoided as part of the trenchless crossings. The two trenchless crossings, known as South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) East HDD, will extend from KP 1161.1 to KP 1161.6 and KP 1161.9 to KP 1162.5 for a total of 1.1 km (Figure 2). Watercourse crossings BC-772a1, BC-774b and BC-774c will be completed using an isolation method. Watercourse BC-773.5 runs parallel to the pipeline route between the two wetlands. Where this watercourse overlaps with the basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp, it will be included in the trenchless crossings, and when it is located within TWS (parallel and north of the centreline), the crossing method will be ramp and culvert. The feasibility of lengthening the SFPR East HDD or adding another trenchless segment was investigated and determined not to be feasible given the space requirements for pipe laydown area and sloping terrain.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT INTERACTION WITH FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT FOR PACIFIC WATER SHREW

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 2 Cont’d

% Parallel to Existing Linear Total Length Disturbance Total Area within Final within Final within Final Watercourse/Wetland Watercourse/Wetland Crossing Details Final Critical Critical Habitat Critical Critical Habitat Crossing within Final and Fisheries Least Risk Biological Window Habitat1 (km)2 Habitat3 (ha)4 Critical Habitat5 Proposed6 Fraser Heights See above See above See above Unnamed Drainage • Proposed primary crossing method: (KP 1161.0 to (Wetland) trenchless (included in SFPR East HDD) KP 1162.7 and (BC-772a2) • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert; swamp KP 1162.9 to KP 1161.1 mats may be required KP 1163.3) • Least risk biological window proposed: open (cont’d) Unnamed Drainage • Proposed primary crossing method: (Wetland) trenchless with water quality monitoring (BC-773.5) (included in SFPR East HDD) for pipeline KP 1161.9 crossing; ramp and culvert within TWS • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert; swamp mats may be required • Least risk biological window proposed: open Unnamed Channel • Proposed primary crossing method: (BC-774a) trenchless with water quality monitoring KP 1162.4 (included in SFPR East HDD) • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert or clear- span bridge; swamp mats may be required • Least risk biological window proposed: July 1 to April 31 Unnamed Channel • Proposed primary crossing method: isolation (BC-774b) if water present KP 1163.0 • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert • Least risk biological window proposed: open Unnamed Drainage • Proposed primary crossing method: isolation (BC-774c) if water present KP 1163.1 • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert • Least risk biological window proposed: open Wetland Crossing Flat Swamp (shrubby • Proposed primary crossing method: swamp) trenchless (included in SFPR East HDD) (Abbo- • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert or clear- Burn_W1129point51)f span bridge; swamp mats may be required KP 1161.2 to KP 1161.6 • Least risk biological window proposed: open. Basin Marsh (emergent • Proposed primary crossing method: marsh) and Riparian trenchless (included in SFPR East HDD) Swamp (shrubby swamp) • Vehicle crossing: ramp and culvert or clear- (Abbo-Burn_W1129point5)f span bridge; swamp mats may be required KP 1161.9 to KP 1162.3 • Least risk biological window proposed: open Notes: 1 KPs based on route version SSEID005 and critical habitat mapping provided by ECCC (EC 2015a). 2 Calculated based on length of the centreline within final critical habitat. 3 This includes the pipeline construction footprint and does not include existing or new temporary access roads. The total area of the pipeline construction footprint within critical habitat does not account for overlap with the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) right-of-way where this is paralleled, or for other existing anthropogenic disturbances that may overlap the Project Footprint (e.g., road). Therefore, the area of critical habitat likely represents an overestimate of Project disturbance. 4 The percentage of the centerline that is parallel to existing linear disturbance include lengths of the centerline that occur within a 30 m buffer of the centerline or abutted against the footprint of existing linear disturbances (e.g., roads, transmission lines, fibre-optic line rights-of-way, and the existing TMPL right-of-way). Following spatial analysis, areas of parallel were visually verified using aerial imagery. Crossings of existing linear features greater than 45 degree angles were excluded, so as to not artificially inflate the percentage parallel. 5 Information on watercourse crossings is provided in Section 7.0 of Volume 7 of the Environmental Plans and as part of the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Volume 8 of the Environmental Plans). Only proposed primary pipeline crossing method is provided. See the additional watercourse crossing information for proposed contingency methods. Information on wetland crossings is provided in the Wetland Survey and Mitigation Plan provided in Section 7.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans. 6 Several watercourses classified as non-classified drainages with wetland characteristics (NCD-W) overlap with the two wetlands (see Figure 2) and are therefore not repeated in this table. For the flat swamp (Abbo-Burn_W1129point51), these include: BC-772a3, BC-772b, BC-772c, BC-772d and BC-773.1. For basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp (Abbo-Burn_W1129point5), these include: BC-773b1, BC-773b2 and BC-773b3. Note that the crossing method at BC-773.1 will include water quality monitoring.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Reactivation Pacific water shrew critical habitat does not interact with any reactivation segments.

Facilities There are no facilities located within Pacific water shrew critical habitat.

Access Roads No new temporary access roads or existing roads requiring upgrade are required to access the Project in Pacific water shrew critical habitat, based on information available for access roads as of December 2016. Trans Mountain is continuing to refine access roads for the Project and any changes will be reviewed in relation to early draft critical habitat.

Contingency Alternate Routes Pacific water shrew critical habitat does not interact with contingency alternate routes.

Variances The SFPR option is not a routing variance, but was indicated in NEB Condition 7. This reroute is located within Pacific water shrew critical habitat from KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.8 (1.8 km). The reroute results in an increase of 1.2 km in pipeline length and an increase of 2.3 ha of pipeline construction footprint within Pacific water shrew critical habitat, though disturbance has been reduced through the use of trenchless crossing techniques. These revisions are reflected in Table 2.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 9

556000 557000 558000 200

200 200 120 140

200 Auguston Community FIGURE 1 PACIFIC WATER SHREW CRITICAL HABITAT - SOUTH OF CLAYBURN CREEK ¯ 200 200 PACIFIC WATER SHREW MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN 200 FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC 180 TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT 160

Pacific Water Shrew 200 Critical Habitat 100

Clayburn Creek 140 SUMAS ! Watercourse Crossing 120 140 240 160 TERMINAL 40 180 !. Trans Mountain Expansion Project 80 Kilometre Post (KP) 180 100 BC-728i1 BC-728i 220 120 80 100 BC-728h Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) 60 160 200 ! ! ! ! BC-728g ! KP 1117 BC-728h1 BC-728f !. 180 ! Trans Mountain Expansion Project BC-728j BC-728i2 Proposed Pipeline Centreline ! !. KP 1116 180 180 ! 220 200 Easement 160 220 KP 1115 240 Temporary Workspace 5436000 !. 5436000 ! Ledgeview Golf and 180 BC-729b Country Club BC-729 200 Extra Temporary Workspace !

KP 1118 180 Facility Footprint !. 240 320 120 220

140 Paved Road 200 300 240 280 Resource Road

260 20m Contour

220

Watercourse 240 240 260 Waterbody

220 200 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N. 220 Existing TMPL Route Revision 0 provided by KMC May 2012; Proposed Pipeline SSEID005, KPs & Footprint provided by UPI January 10, 2017; Watercourse Crossings provided by UPI December 22, 2016; Critical Habitat: Environment Canada 2016; Facility Footprints provided by KMC December 2, 2016; Transportation: BC FLNRO 2012, NRCan 2012; TRIM Contours: 300 provided by KMC 2012; Hydrology: BC FLNRO 2008; Orthorectified aerial imagery provided by KMC 2016. 320 This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for 180 use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on 240 360 5435000 180 5435000 or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's 380 prior written approval.

280 200 180 400 260 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of 240 180 160 these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 300 MAP NUMBER PAGE 220 280 201605_MAP_CH2M_WL_00883_REVC_1 SHEET 1 OF 2 200 140 DATE CH2M REF. REVISION 180 May 2017 687945 C 240 340 340 120 SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 460 1:9,000 11x17 WL 320 160 100 DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN 140 CMR DJN SL 420 240 m 440 120 0 100 200 300 400 556000 557000 558000 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 201605_MAP_CH2M_WL_00883_RevC_1.mxd 516000 517000 518000 519000

Fraser River

FIGURE 2 PACIFIC WATER SHREW CRITICAL HABITAT - FRASER HEIGHTS 5451000 ¯ 5451000 20 PACIFIC WATER SHREW MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN 40 FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC 20 KP 1164 !. TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

113B 114 Ave Av 60 e Pacific Water Shrew Critical Habitat St 163 St 62 80 1 60 158A St Wetland

1 6 OP17 4 ! Watercourse Crossing 15 S 9A t 40 80 St ! !. Trans Mountain Expansion Project ! Kilometre Post (KP) 112 Ave 60 BC-774c KP 1163 !.

Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) 111A Ave SURREY BEND BC-774b REGIONAL PARK

157B St157B 80 Trans Mountain Expansion Project Proposed Pipeline Centreline 111 Ave t S

A 3 Easement 6 1 Basin Marsh (emergent marsh) surrounded

by Riparian Swamp (shrubby swamp) 159 159 St 164A St t Temporary Workspace

S (Abbo-Burn_W1129point5) ! 110 Ave B

5 5450000 5450000

6 1 ! Extra Temporary Workspace 109A Ave BC-774a ! 80 80 ! OP1 Highway

20 BC-773b3 109 Ave !. Paved Road BC-773b2 KP 1162 ! 108A Ave ! Resource Road 80 80 BC-773b1 BC-773.5 Flat Swamp (shrubby swamp) Railway 108 Ave (Abbo-Burn_W1129point51)

107A Ave BC-773.4 20m Contour BC-773.1 80 ! Watercourse

107 Ave S 158 St 158 168 St168 a l 160 St 160 is ! b BC-772d u ! Waterbody d r

106A Ave y n

y D ! r 80 W BC-772c ! Park / Protected Area

80 s

u !

t u BC-772b ! b r Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N. A KP 1161 Existing TMPL Route Revision 0 provided by KMC May 2012; 170A St !. BC-772a3 Proposed Pipeline SSEID005, KPs & Footprint provided by UPI January 10, 2017; Watercourse Crossings provided by UPI December 22, 2016; Wetlands: CH2M, Jan 26, 2017; Critical BC-772a2 Habitat: Environment Canada 2016; Transportation: BC FLNRO 2012, NRCan 2012; TRIM Contours: provided by KMC 2012; 5449000 5449000 Park/Protected Area: Metro Vancouver 2011; Hydrology: BC FLNRO 2008; Orthorectified aerial imagery provided by KMC 1 BC-772a1 OP A Ave in 60 104 d This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for us use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential 40 tri and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other 173 St al a recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for 20 cces ad legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on 104 Ave s ro or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval.

Daly Rd Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of t 40 these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. T S 103A Ave re MAP NUMBER PAGE o 7 201605_MAP_CH2M_WL_00883_REVC_2 Ac 6 103B Ave SHEET 2 OF 2 ce 1 60 !. 60 ss R DATE CH2M REF. REVISION d KP May 2017 687945 C Parkview Pl SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 103 Ave Abb 1160 1:11,000 11x17 WL 60 ey 20 DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Dr CMR DJN PMS scale access 102 Ave

172 St m 60 0 150 300 450 516000 517000 518000 519000 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 201605_MAP_CH2M_WL_00883_RevC_2.mxd Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

3.3 Regulatory Context This Plan was developed in consideration of current regulatory policies and guidance. Trans Mountain will continue to work with Appropriate Government Authorities to align this Plan with provincial and federal policy.

3.3.1 Provincial Regulatory Policy and Guidance A summary of key provincial regulatory policy and guidance is provided below.

Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in British Columbia The Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in BC (the provincial Recovery Strategy) was prepared by the PWSRT in June 2009 (PWSRT 2009). The provincial Recovery Strategy outlines the main recovery goal for Pacific water shrew, which is to maintain the current population of Pacific water shrew with no further loss of local populations and restore this species back to its historical range where suitable habitat still exists or can be restored. This goal will be achieved through seven objectives including: protecting all known extant locations; restoring historical and important potential habitat; preventing habitat fragmentation and maintaining connectivity; preventing inadvertent loss of unknown populations through surveys, modeling, and mapping; addressing immediate threats and mitigating direct mortality; evaluating implemented protective measures and recovery activities; and increasing our understanding of important habitat, life history, population dynamics, habitat use, and threats to the population. The provincial Recovery Strategy recommends protection of a 100 m buffer around each side of watercourses and water bodies associated with recent occurrence records (i.e., occupied habitat), where habitat is available.

Best Management Practices for Pacific Water Shrew in Urban and Rural Areas A working draft of the Best Management Practices for Pacific Water Shrew in Urban and Rural Areas (Craig et al. 2010) was released in 2010. This document includes best management practices for habitat, including information on habitat protection, habitat rehabilitation, activities around crossings of watercourses and wetlands, recommendations for retention of riparian vegetation, coarse woody debris, and maintenance of habitat connectivity, as well as information on management options. These measures were considered and incorporated into Project planning and mitigation.

3.3.2 Federal Regulatory Policy and Guidance The final Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in Canada (the federal Recovery Strategy) was posted on December 10, 2014 (EC 2014b). The federal Recovery Strategy consists of two parts:

• Part 1 – Federal Addition to the Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in BC, prepared by ECCC; and

• Part 2 – Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in BC, prepared by the PWSRT for the BC MOE.

The federal Recovery Strategy (Part 1) provides updated sections from the provincial Recovery Strategy (Part 2) that address specific requirements of SARA.

The population and distribution objectives for the Pacific water shrew in the federal Recovery Strategy are the same as the recovery goals identified in the provincial Recovery Strategy (see above). Critical habitat, as defined by SARA, is the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the Recovery Strategy or in an action plan for that species. Critical habitat has been identified for Pacific water shrew based on locations where at least one individual was found (e.g., only if there is a high degree of certainty and/or suitable habitat is found within close proximity to the occurrence). Critical habitat for Pacific water shrew is defined as possessing the following biophysical attributes:

• coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment;

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

• an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment; and

• downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate (EC 2014b).

ECCC suggests that Pacific water shrew populations require a watercourse approximately 1.5 km in length, with a riparian buffer of at least 100 m wide on each side of the watercourse (EC 2014b). The 100 m buffer was suggested since the majority of Pacific water shrew observations occur within 50 m of water, and microclimatic edge effects in forested habitats occur within 50 m of the edge. The best quality habitat for Pacific water shrew includes a riparian area around, and including, a permanent stream or creek (<10 m wide) or any size wetland (including swamps, marshes, lakes, etc.) with a mature coniferous forest (structural stages 5-7) of western red-cedar and/or western hemlock or mature deciduous or mixed forest (structural stages 4-7), and habitat surrounding the stream or wetland sufficient to protect the normal function of the riparian ecosystem (i.e., a protective area) (Craig et al. 2010). Home range size and dispersal behaviour is uncertain for Pacific water shrew (PWSRT 2009). However, habitat connectivity is an important consideration in the identification of critical habitat and includes areas within 5 km of occurrences with suitable connecting habitat or within 1 km in areas of unsuitable connecting habitat (EC 2014b).

The critical habitat for Pacific water shrew in the areas of South Clayburn Creek (near Sumas Mountain) and Fraser Heights (near Surrey Bend Regional Park) is based on previous occurrence records. Within the mapped areas containing critical habitat, areas without the biophysical attributes required by Pacific water shrew (e.g., roads and buildings) are not considered critical habitat (ECCC 2014b).

3.3.3 Alignment with Available Regulatory Policy and Guidance Trans Mountain proposes to focus mitigation and restoration measures to watercourses crossed by the Project within the critical habitat provided by ECCC. Specifically, to those watercourses that have a suitable length (e.g., at least 1.5 km in length), reasonable flow, and mature forest cover or wetland vegetation to provide a moist microenvironment. In alignment with the information provided by the provincial and federal Recovery Strategies, a 100 m buffer on either side of these watercourses will be restored where mature forest cover or wetland vegetation is present prior to construction. In many cases, the watercourses crossed by the Project are located in areas that have been altered by existing developments and activities (e.g., transportation and urban infrastructure) and the riparian buffer does not extend to 100 m. Although mitigation is focused on selected watercourses crossed by the Project, broad mitigation and restoration measures are applicable to the area of critical habitat identified by ECCC if the biophysical attributes are present (e.g., coarse woody debris). Application of the measures will be dependent on landowner agreements on privately owned lands and site-specific conditions.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 13

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

4.0 WILDLIFE FIELD WORK The methods and results of the wildlife field work specific to Pacific water shrew in 2014 are provided in the Supplemental Wildlife Report (Trans Mountain 2014). This Plan provides any relevant information related to critical habitat for Pacific water shrew from 2014, as well as the results of any field work for these species conducted in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Field work was completed in June 2014, August/September 2015, October 2016 and January 2017 to collect baseline information on the presence/absence of biophysical attributes of critical habitat for Pacific water shrew in select areas along the proposed pipeline route. The information collected was used to inform mitigation, as well as restoration measures and the monitoring program. Survey methods and results are provided below. Information collected during other discipline field work (e.g., aquatics, wetlands, vegetation) was also reviewed and incorporated where relevant.

To facilitate Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM), baseline monitoring information was collected within the South of Clayburn Creek and Fraser Heights areas between October 21 and 25, 2016 (see Section 7.0). Additional monitoring areas will be established within Fraser Heights prior to construction where land access was not granted in 2016. Detailed results (e.g., coarse woody debris transects/volume) will be provided as part of PCEM reporting (see Section 7.4) and are not provided here.

4.1 Methods The locations selected for the field review of the biophysical attributes of Pacific water shrew critical habitat in June 2014 were based on the hard-copy maps provided by ECCC (EC 2014c). Within the general areas identified on the hard-copy maps, nine sites were visited from June 16 to 17, 2014, with emphasis on riparian areas of streams and wetlands. Upon receipt of updated information from ECCC in November 2014 (i.e., shapefile of critical habitat polygons), it was determined that of the nine sites reviewed in June 2014, five were located within the critical habitat polygons identified by ECCC (EC 2014a). This included three sites within South of Clayburn Creek, and two sites within Fraser Heights. The four remaining sites were located within 500 m of a critical habitat polygon.

In 2015, 2016 and 2017, the updated information provided by ECCC (EC 2014a), as well as the Pacific water shrew habitat model that was prepared for the Project (see Volume 5C of the Application) were used to focus field work. Field work to record the presence/absence of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat within the Project Footprint was completed from August 28 to September 2, 2015, along the length of the pipeline route within South of Clayburn Creek (KP 1115.9 to KP 1116.8 and KP 1117.0 to KP 1117.4) and 0.7 km of Fraser Heights (KP 1162.4 to KP 1162.7 and KP 1162.9 to KP 1163.3). A field review of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat was completed on October 22, 2016 along the SFPR Reroute in Fraser Heights from KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.2 (1.2 km). On January 25, 2017, KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.2 was revisited and a field review of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat was completed from KP 1162.2 to KP 1162.4 (0.2 km). All areas of Project overlap with critical habitat, within South of Clayburn Creek and Fraser Heights were surveyed for biophysical attributes. Given the importance of natural streams, wetlands and channelized watercourses, these features were selected for focused review. Streams, wetlands and channelized watercourses were initially identified during a desktop review and in collaboration with Project engineers, aquatic and wetland specialists using available information such as provincial mapping, LiDAR, aerial photography, topographic maps and field information collected to date.

4.2 Results Within the critical habitat polygons provided by ECCC, 23 potential watercourse crossings were identified along the pipeline route based on a desktop review (i.e., nine in South of Clayburn Creek and 14 in Fraser Heights, see Table 2). Based on the field work, many of these locations were found to lack a channel with water that was continuous for approximately 1.5 km in length. Although overland flow, standing water and vegetated swales (non-classified drainages) were identified, they lacked a continuous defined channel and riparian vegetation, and in some cases were associated with wetlands, seasonal run-off drainages along the existing TMPL right-of-way or road-side ditches. The biophysical attribute of an area of water was determined to be absent for those locations with either no water or standing water due to saturated soils. The results of the field work are summarized below. Table 3 provides details of the

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 14

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

biophysical attributes of critical habitat observed within the areas identified by ECCC that interact with the pipeline route. Note eight watercourses classified as NCD-W that overlap with the two wetland crossings in Fraser Heights are considered as part of the wetland complexes and not as separate crossings in this Plan (refer to footnote 4 in Table 3).

In South of Clayburn Creek, two watercourses were identified as having suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and stream characteristics. These are: BC-728h and BC- 729.

In Fraser Heights, the two wetland crossings (i.e., the flat swamp and basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp) were identified as having suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and wetland characteristics. The wetlands and the drainages (NCD-W) within them will be avoided by implementation of a trenchless crossing. Within the area of overlap with the basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp, BC-773.5 has suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and wetland characteristics. Although this unnamed drainage (wetland) is located within suitable terrestrial habitat (i.e., young mixedwood forest) outside of the area of overlap with the basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp, suitable aquatic habitat for Pacific water shrew was not present. Finally, watercourse crossings BC-774a, BC-774b and BC 774c were identified as having suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and stream characteristics. Disturbance at watercourse crossing BC-774a will be avoided via a trenchless crossing (HDD).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 15

3 Comments August 27, 2015: No water orpresent. obvious channelized watercourse November 23, 2015: Classified as NCD.with Seasonal standing drainage water and overland flow.channel. No continuous defined Note: a small wetland is locatedroute to and the is south associated of with the thiswetland pipeline drainage. (0.03 A ha) small occurs portion on of theis the Project classified Footprint. as The a wetland Slope Swamp(ID (shrubby Hope-Abbo_W1086point1). swamp, Ws53) August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present in the area. June 17, 2014 and August 27,side 2015: of Deciduous drainage forest (>100 on m either perpendicularherbaceous to plants drainage). provide Low moist microclimate. June 17, 2014 and August 27,drainage 2015: lacking Ephemeral an or obvious intermittent channel. No waterNovember present. 23, 2015: Classified as a(NCD). non-classified Ditch drainage parallels existing TMPL right-of-way,overland seasonal flow and lack of continuous defined channel. June 17, 2014 and August 27,present. 2015: coarse woody debris is August 27, 2015: Deciduous forest on(>100 either m side perpendicular of to drainage watercourse). Denseunderstory shrub and low herbaceous plants providemicroclimate. moist • • • • • • • • • )  or        Present ( 2 Biophysical Attribute TABLE 3 moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a and Date 1 Survey Location (KP) BIOPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR PACIFIC WATER SHREW right-of-way) August 27, 2015: review biophysical attributes10U of 557871 critical 5436144 habitat Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728g) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.2 10U 557678 5436180 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) August 27, 2015: UTM not providedassessment since was a not site-specific completed given absenceor of change obvious in drainage vegetation. Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728f) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.0 10U 557856 5436145 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) June 17, 2014: review biophysical attributes10U of 557880 critical 5436212 habitat. (note, location is 55 m from the construction Final Critical Habitat South of Clayburn Creek KP 1115.9 to KP 1116.8 and KP 1117.0 to KP 1117.4

Page 16 3 Comments present. November 23, 2015: Classified as NVC.evidence Dry of site, drainage with or no sign of fluvial processes. August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present. August 27, 2015: Deciduous forest on(>100 either m side perpendicular of to drainage watercourse). Denseherbaceous shrub plants and provide moist microclimate. August 27, 2015: No water orpresent. obvious channelized watercourse November 23, 2015: Classified as NVC.discernible Dry drainage upland or site sign with of no fluvial processes. August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present. June 17, 2014 and August 27,either 2015: side Mixedwood of forest channel on (>100 mSteep perpendicular banks to lack the riparian channel). vegetation. Surroundingdense forest canopy and closure and wet soilsmicroclimate. suggest moist June 17, 2014 and August 27,2014 2015: and Slight no flow flowing noted water in present June inNovember August 23, 2015. 2015: Classified as S3located (stepped on culvert McKee outlet Road may impedeone fish coastal movement cutthroat upstream; trout was capturedculvert). downstream Seasonal of watercourse with a smallof channel flow size, and lack shallow depths. Watercourseintermittent may during be summer dry months. or High percentage ofJune fines. 17, 2014 and August 27,present 2015: Coarse woody debris is August 27, 2015: Mixedwood forest on(>100 either m side perpendicular of to drainage watercourse). Denseherbaceous shrub plants and provide moist microclimate. August 27, 2015: No water or obvious channelized watercourse • • • • • • • • • • • • )  or           Present ( 2 Biophysical Attribute moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment TABLE 3 Cont’d and Date 1 Survey Location (KP) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728i) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.7 10U 557224 5436245 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) August 27, 2015: UTM not providedassessment since was a not site-specific completed given absenceor of change obvious in drainage vegetation. August 27, 2015: review biophysical attributes10U of 557530 critical 5436205 habitat Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728h1) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.6 10U 557300 5436244 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) August 27, 2015: UTM not providedassessment since was a not site-specific completed given absenceor of change obvious in drainage vegetation. Name (Watercourse ID) Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Channel (BC-728h) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.5 10U 557408 5436225 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) June 17, 2014: review biophysical attributes10U of 557627 critical 5436142. habitat Site visit wascrossing located location. 0.2 km east of Final Critical Habitat and KP 1117.0 to KP 1117.4 (cont’d) South of Clayburn Creek KP 1115.9 to KP 1116.8

Page 17 3 Comments swale with saturated soils and standingdefined water. channel. No continuous August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present. August 27, 2015: Mixedwood forest extendswest >100 side m and on is the present forside approximately where 20 McKee m Road on occurs. the east August 27, 2015: No water orpresent. obvious channelized watercourse November 18, 2015: Classified as NCD.drainage Seasonal that ditch flows parallel to theSeepage existing water TMPL from right-of-way. ditch line spreadsTMPL across right-of-way the and existing dissipates overland downslope40% (30 gradient) to August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present August 27, 2015: Deciduous forest on(>100 either m side perpendicular of to drainage watercourse). Denseherbaceous shrub plants and provide moist microclimate. August 27, 2015: No water orpresent. obvious channelized watercourse November 23, 2015: Classified as NCD.saturated Vegetated soils swale and with standing water. Athe small existing ditch TMPL also right-if-way parallels along thewas south present side. although No there water is potentialflow. for seasonal overland August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present. August 27, 2015: Deciduous forest extendsside >100 of m the on drainage the and east isthe present west for the approximately drainage. 90 Dense m shrubprovide on and moist herbaceous microclimate. plants August 27, 2015: No water orpresent. obvious channelized watercourse November 23, 2015: Classified as NCD. Slight topographic • • • • • • • • • • • • )  or           Present ( 2 Biophysical Attribute downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment TABLE 3 Cont’d and Date 1 Survey Location (KP) KP 1117.1 10U 556841 5436087 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 18, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) August 27, 2015: UTM not providedassessment since was a not site-specific completed given absenceor of change obvious in drainage vegetation. Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728i2) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.8 10U 557062 5436241 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date) August 27, 2015: UTM not providedassessment since was a not site-specific completed given absenceor of change obvious in drainage vegetation. Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728j) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-728i1) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.7 10U 557194 5436244 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 23, 2015 Wildlife Field Work (Date) August 27, 2015: UTM not providedassessment since was a not site-specific completed given absenceor of change obvious in drainage vegetation. Final Critical Habitat and KP 1117.0 to KP 1117.4 (cont’d) South of Clayburn Creek KP 1115.9 to KP 1116.8

Page 18 3 Comments wet area with saturated ground andwater. sparse Shallow pockets depths of and standing poor connectivitydefined and channel. no continuous October 20, 2016: Coarse woody debris is not present. October 20, 2016: Located within aof disturbed dense area shrubs. with An patches industrial developmentsoutheast occurs and immediately the South Fraser Perimeterimmediately Road north. occurs August 27, 2015: Mixedwood forest extendsside >100 of m the on watercourse east and forside, approximately where 50 a m residential on development the occurs.to Close west McKee proximity Road and residential area (approximatelyApril 50 30, m 2013: west). Classified as S5.potential Seasonal for watercourse. fish Low due to impassabledownstream falls of approximately the 250 crossing. m August 27, 2015: Watercourse with rockysmall substrate step and pools. some August 27, 2015: Coarse woody debris is present. October 20, 2016: Located within aimmediately cleared, adjacent disturbed to area industrial developments andFraser the Perimeter South Road. October 20, 2016: No water orwatercourse obvious or channelized defined wetland present. January 25, 2017: Classified as NCD-W. Seasonal low-lying • • • • • • • • • )  or         Present ( 2 Biophysical Attribute an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment TABLE 3 Cont’d and Date 1 Survey Location (KP) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.1 10U 518566 5449190 Aquatic Assessment (Date) January 25, 2017 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) October 20, 2016: review biophysical attributes10U of 518565 critical 5449183 habitat Watercourse Crossing Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (Wetland) (BC-772a1) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1116.1 10U 518608 5449146 Aquatic Assessment (Date) January 25, 2017 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) October 20, 2016: review biophysical attributes10U of 518606 critical 5449147 habitat Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (Wetland) (BC-772a2) Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Channel (BC-729) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1117.3 10U 556757 5435953 Aquatic Assessment (Date) November 20, 2012 (also April 30,Wildlife 2013) Field Work (Date and Location) August 27, 2015: review biophysical attributes10U of 556751 critical 5435946 habitat Final Critical Habitat and KP 1162.9 to KP 1163.3 Fraser Heights KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.7 and KP 1117.0 to KP 1117.4 (cont’d) South of Clayburn Creek KP 1115.9 to KP 1116.8

Page 19 3 Comments wetland drainage that is crossed bysoutheast the through pipeline temporary and workspace, flows where itsouth parallels edge the of the South Fraserapproximately Perimeter 500 Road m. for Originates from largearea open-water and ponded is predominately overland flowstanding with water pockets but of no continuous definedsomewhat channel, confined although by artificial berm alongroad. south edge of the October 20, 2016: Coarse woody debris is present. June 16, 2014 and August 25,present, 2015: but Young extent deciduous on forest either is sidedevelopment. is limited by existing May 23, 2014: Classified as S3.fines Perennial and watercourse. organic 100% material, high waterdissolved temperature oxygen. and Abundant low instream vegetation June 16, 2014 and August 25,bordered 2015: by slow agronomic moving grasses stream and young shrubs. June 16, 2014 and August 25,watercourse 2015: or No in coarse close woody proximity debris butyoung in some forest in (within surrounding 100 m perpendicular to watercourse). October 20, 2016: No water orwatercourse obvious or channelized defined wetland present. January 25, 2017: Classified as NCD-W.wet Seasonal area low-lying approximately 10 m wide,poor with connectivity shallow and depths no and continuous defined channel. October 20, 2016: Coarse woody debris is not present. October 20, 2016. Dense wetland vegetationpipeline occurs easement within where the the drainage overlapsAbbo-Burn_W1129point5. with The drainage flows away frompipeline of easement, the but continues to paralleland the crosses pipeline TWS route associated with aWithin non-trenchless the segment. TWS, the drainage occursmixedwood along forest, the with edge the of South young Fraserlocated Perimeter immediately Road north. October 20, 2016: No obvious wetlandwatercourse or present channelized except where the drainageAbbo-Burn_W1129point5. overlaps with January 25, 2017: Classified as seasonal NCD-W. Low-lying • • • • • • • • • • • )  or        (partial)  Present (  2 Biophysical Attribute watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to TABLE 3 Cont’d and Date 1 January 25, 2017 Survey Location (KP) Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Channel (BC-774a) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1162.4 10U 517647 5450014 Aquatic Assessment (Date) May 23, 2014 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) June 16, 2014: review biophysical attributes10U of 517652 critical 5450055 habitat August 25, 2015: review biophysical attributes10U of 517640 critical 5450034 habitat KP 1161.9 10U 518007 5449728 Aquatic Assessment (Date) Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) October 20, 2016: review biophysical attributes10U of 518309 critical 5449496 habitat to 10U 518039 5449736 See above Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (Wetland) (BC-773.5) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing Final Critical Habitat and KP 1162.9 to KP 1163.3 (cont’d) Fraser Heights KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.7

Page 20 3 Comments Residential area is located approximately 80the m South upstream Fraser and Perimeter Road isdownstream approximately of 90 the m watercourse crossing location.dense Moderately herbaceous plants and grasses. October 8, 2014: Classified as NCD.with Small short seasonal sections drainage of scour butgreater no than continuous 100 defined m. channel No fishof habitat channelization, potential poor attributed connectivity and to a downslopeculvert lack rip-rap barriers and at the Fraser PerimeterAugust Road. 25, 2015: Small watercourse. Smalland meanders, woody roots debris present. August 25, 2015: Course woody debriswatercourse is and present in across the surrounding forest100 on m either perpendicular side to (within watercourse). June 16, 2014 and August 25,is 2015: present Mature on mixedwood either forest side ofperpendicular the to watercourse watercourse). (>100 A m residential areaapproximately is 50 located m upstream and theRoad South is Fraser approximately Perimeter 90 m downstreamcrossing of location. the Moderately watercourse dense herbaceous understory and mosses. October 8, 2014: Classified as S6.with Small overland seasonal flow watercourse and sections ofLow a fish marginally habitat defined potential channel. attributed todischarge, a overland lack flow of sections, flow, subsurface poor flowconfluence near with Centre Creek and downstreamdrop, barriers subsurface (0.8 flow, m rip-rap barrier anddownstream fish from exclusion the fence Fraser Perimeter Road). June 16, 2014 and August 25,small 2015: step Small pools. watercourse with June 16, 2014 and August 25,present. 2015: Coarse woody debris is August 25, 2015: Mature mixedwood forestwatercourse on (>100 either m side perpendicular of to watercourse). • • • • • • • • )  or        Present ( 2 Biophysical Attribute an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment TABLE 3 Cont’d and Date 1 Survey Location (KP) Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Drainage (BC-774c) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1163.1 10U 517067 5450486 Aquatic Assessment (Date) October 8, 2014 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) August 25, 2015: review biophysical attributes10U of 517067 critical 5450483 habitat Name (Watercourse ID) Unnamed Channel (BC-774b) KP and UTM of Pipeline Crossing KP 1163.0 10U 517140 5450425 Aquatic Assessment (Date) October 8, 2014 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) June 16, 2014: review biophysical attributes10U of 517134 CH 5450387 August 25, 2015: review biophysical attributes10U of 517124 critical 5450411 habitat Final Critical Habitat and KP 1162.9 to KP 1163.3 (cont’d) Fraser Heights KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.7

Page 21

t o n

e 3 r a

t a h t

d n a

Comments h s i f

t u o h t i w

s m a road, industrial developments) and the South Fraser e r t S

. e.g., s immediately north of the wetland boundary. October 20, 2016: Wetland dominated byshrubs, sedges, with grasses areas and of open water. January 25 2017: Classified as amarsh) Basin surrounded Marsh by (emergent a Riparian SwampThis (shrubby wetland swamp). is part of apurification complex to and the provides surrounding moderate area, water erosionwater protection storage, and due to size. October 20, 2016: Coarse woody debris is present. October 20, 2016: Dense wetland vegetationwetland. throughout Young mixedwood forest occurs alongroute the northwest pipeline of the wetland (>100boundary). m Disturbed from habitat the occurs wetland immediately southeast ( Perimeter Road occurs immediately north ofboundary. the wetland October 20, 2016: Shrubby swamp dominatedgrasses by and sedges, shrubs, with areas of openJanuary water. 25 2017: Classified as aThis Flat swamp Swamp is (shrubby part swamp). of apurification complex to and the provides surrounding moderate area, water erosionwater protection storage, and due to size. October 20, 2016: Sparse coarse woody debris is present. October 20, 2016: Dense wetland vegetationwetland. throughout Young mixedwood forest occurs alongroute the northwest pipeline and southeast of thewetland wetland boundary). (>100 The m South from Fraser the Perimeter Road occurs m a e r t • • • • • • • • s

h s i f

s a

) d  e g or       a n  a Present ( m

e r a

s m a e r t 2 s

d e h s r e t a w

y t i n u m m o Biophysical Attribute c

l l A

. moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment an area of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse, whether permanent, ephemeral or intermittent) to support foraging and provide a moist microenvironment downed wood to provide cover, nesting and foraging substrate coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh/wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a ) TABLE 3 Cont’d e d i w

5 . 1

e r a

s m a e r t s

4 S

and Date d 1 n a

; e d i w

non-classified drainages with wetland characteristics) overlap with the two wetlands (see Figure 2) and are therefore not repeated in this table. For ( 5

≤

5 . 1

e 4 r a

Survey Location (KP) s m a e r t s

3 S

; e d i Name (Wetland ID) Basin Marsh (emergent marsh) and Riparianswamp) Swamp (shrubby (Abbo-Burn_W1129point5) KP and UTM Range of PipelineKP Crossing 1161.9 to KP 1162.310U 5180375449972 5449691 to 10U 517691 Wetland Assessment (Date) January 25, 2017 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) October 20, 2016: review biophysical attributes10U of 518039 critical 5449736 habitat to 10U 517818 5449911 Wetland Crossing Name (Wetland ID) Flat Swamp (shrubby swamp) (Abbo-Burn_W1129point51) KP and UTM Range of PipelineKP Crossing 1161.1 to KP 1161.6 10U 518546 5449204 to 10U 518248Wetland 5449512 Assessment (Date) January 25, 2017 Wildlife Field Work (Date and Location) October 20, 2016: review biophysical attributes10U of 518566 critical 5449180 habitat to 10U 518309 5449496 w

0 2

≤

e r Abbo-Burn_W1129point51, these include: BC-772a3, BC-772b, BC-772c,BC-772d BC-772d and and BC-773.1. BC-773.1. For For the the basin flat marsh swamp surrounded (Abbo-Burn_W1129point51), by these riparian include: swamp BC-772a3, (Abbo-Burn_W1129point5), BC-772b, these BC-772c, include: BC-773b1, BC-773b2 and BC-773b3. the Wetland Survey and Mitigation Planreview, provided collaboration in with Section Project 7.1 engineers of andinformation Volume aquatic/wetland collected 6 specialists to of using date. the available The Environmental information results Plans... such indicate All as in “watercourse” provincial several or mapping, cases wetland Lidar, that crossings aerial a listed photography channelized in and watercourse Table topographic does maps, 3 not as area exist. well based as on field a combination ofcommunity desktop watershed streams are classified S5designated or as S6 non-classified (Class drainages S5 (NCDs). streams NVC are refers > to 3 no m visual wide, channel. and NCD-W S6 refers streams to are non-classified < drainages 3 with m wetland wide). characteristics. Watercourses that do not meet the criteria for the definition of a stream are the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table provided in Section 8 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans and as part of the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Volume 8 of the Environmental Plans) and 4 Several watercourses classified as NCD-W 23 Biophysical attributes for Pacific water shrew To critical assist habitat in provided stream in classification, the the Recovery classifications Strategy used (EC in 2014b). the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table are provided. Fish streams are classified S1–S4 (Class S1 streams are > 20 m wide; S2 streams 1 KPs are approximate and based on route version SSEID005. Watercourse/wetland names, crossing IDs and UTMs (NAD 83), and associated aquatic or wetland assessment information are taken from Final Critical Habitat and KP 1162.9 to KP 1163.3 (cont’d) Fraser Heights KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.7 Notes:

Page 22 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

5.0 MITIGATION Project planning and mitigation development followed the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize and restore on-site as described in the following sections. Planning support and development of site-specific mitigation and restoration measures is based on information available to date (e.g., field surveys, consultation with BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO), mapping provided by ECCC). In addition, discussions with technical experts provided information on mitigation and restoration measures used on other Projects that were considered in planning and mitigation development, such as revegetation methods (Lee pers. comm.). Collection of additional information prior to construction (e.g., additional field surveys) is ongoing and will be used to inform and modify mitigation as necessary. This Plan will be included as part of the Environmental Management Plans (Section 6.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans).

During Project planning, all possible mitigation options were considered in light of known constraints and limitations associated with site characteristics, existing disturbance and activities, regulatory requirements and recommendations, and construction methods. The consideration of these measures and their feasibility are discussed below.

5.1 Avoid During the pre-construction phase, available strategies to avoid adverse effects to critical habitat include routing and siting, and scheduling. The strategies of avoidance that have been considered in Project planning are described below.

5.1.1 Project Routing The pipeline corridor and route selection process for the Project is described in the Application (Section 2.8 of Volume 4A) (Trans Mountain 2013). In general, the primary objective was to locate the pipeline route contiguous to and share construction workspace with the existing TMPL right-of-way wherever possible.

Details related to routing and avoidance of critical habitat for Pacific water shrew is provided below.

South of Clayburn Creek The pipeline route crosses Pacific water shrew final critical habitat for a length of 1.4 km (from KP 1115.9 to KP 1116.8 and KP 1117.0 to KP 1117.4) (Figure 1). Opportunities to avoid the critical habitat polygon were reviewed and routing either to the north or south would result in the creation of a new linear corridor, on sloping terrain and in proximity to, or through, residential development. Within the critical habitat polygon, routing of the Project has been aligned to parallel the existing TMPL right-of-way for its entire length, and therefore achieves the primary objective of the route selection process. The pipeline route will use the existing TMPL right-of-way as TWS to reduce clearing requirements. The length of the pipeline route within this critical habitat polygon is located on private land.

Fraser Heights The pipeline route crosses Pacific water shrew final critical habitat for a length of 2.1 km (from KP 1161.0 to KP 1162.7 and KP 1162.9 to KP 1163.3) (Figure 2). Several adjustments have been made to the pipeline corridor since the Application was filed in December 2013. Trans Mountain has realigned the pipeline to avoid Surrey Bend Regional Park, while also attempting to parallel existing linear corridors and locate the pipeline route in already established transportation/utility corridors. Disturbance to 1.1 km (52%) of the pipeline route within critical habitat will be avoided via trenchless crossings (SFPR East HDD) from KP 1161.1 to KP 1161.6 and KP 1161.9 to KP 1162.5. Complete avoidance of the critical habitat polygon is challenging given the density of development in this area and sloping terrain. Within the critical habitat polygon, the pipeline route parallels existing linear disturbances for approximately 0.6 km (30.1% of its length). Although not captured within the percent parallel analysis (i.e., outside 30 m buffer of existing disturbances), a substantial portion of the pipeline route is within 30 m to 50 m of the SFPR. The entire length of the pipeline route within this critical habitat polygon is located on private land.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 23

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

5.1.2 Project Scheduling Pacific water shrews are active year-round and the breeding season is likely to extend from January to August (PWSRT 2009). Important factors to consider when scheduling activity are temperature and precipitation. Prior to any Project activity within critical habitat for Pacific water shrew a salvage must be conducted. Trapping cannot occur if frost, heavy rainfall or cold temperatures (no less than 3°C) are expected to occur.

Project scheduling is currently under review and will consider the important timing constraints associated with Pacific water shrew salvage to the extent possible while balancing consideration of other constraints applicable to Project scheduling in these areas. These constraints include a multitude of factors, such as access requirements and landowner agreements, contractor and equipment availability, progressive linear construction methods, streamflow, soil moisture conditions, and other sensitive timing windows for wildlife and fish. Trans Mountain will consult with BC MFLNRO to discuss scheduling of activity.

5.2 Minimize and Restore On-site In addition to routing and siting, as well as Project scheduling, Trans Mountain considered reasonable alternative measures to avoid and reduce effects on critical habitat. Through routing and siting, the Project Footprint has been reduced to the extent feasible. Additional Project planning considerations during the pre-construction phase provided the opportunity to further minimize Project effects and facilitate habitat restoration following Project construction. Input on Project planning and design was reviewed and discussed with Trans Mountain engineers, Construction Supervisors, the Lead Environmental Inspector and Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.’s (KMC) operations staff to determine the applicability and feasibility of alternative measures to avoid and reduce effects on critical habitat. Additional examples of planning considerations include adjusting the configuration of TWS to avoid or reduce clearing of vegetation and evaluating the feasibility of trenchless crossing techniques. As part of Project planning, these measures were considered and reviewed as an alternative measure to reduce Project effects on critical habitat (within mapped areas provided by ECCC). Examples of criteria used to evaluate adjusting the configuration of TWS include, but are not limited to: terrain conditions (slopes), surface/subsurface conditions (rock, depth of soil, etc.), construction access requirements, materials storage needs and construction methods (e.g., bends require additional space).

During consultation, the application of trenchless crossing techniques (HDD and bore methods) was discussed (Appendix B, Table B-3). Trans Mountain acknowledges that trenchless methods have multiple benefits in certain circumstances. Although trenchless methods minimize disturbance over the immediate drill path, extra area is required at each end of the HDD or bore path for entry and exit holes, equipment and pipe set up, pipe lay-down areas, as well as for topsoil and subsoil storage. This results in a larger disturbance footprint for shorter trenchless installations compared to conventional trenched construction and associated restoration requirements. Trenchless methods also often take longer to complete, require more construction resources (labour, equipment, materials and water), adds considerable cost and can be more technically difficult with potential risk of failure. The longer the trenchless installation is, the higher is the risk of failure and having to revert back to open cut installation. Conventional trenched crossings, in many cases, are more beneficial given the smaller disturbance, duration and cost. These criteria (area of disturbance, duration, feasibility/risk, cost) are used to evaluate and select the most effective approach.

Project planning within critical habitat for Pacific water shrew has included efforts to reduce the area of the Project Footprint to the extent possible (e.g., narrowing of pipeline construction footprint, using the existing TMPL right-of-way as workspace to reduce clearing requirements). As noted in Sections 3.2 and 5.1.1, within the South of Clayburn Creek area, the feasibility of a trenchless crossing was investigated and determined not to be feasible at the unnamed channel immediately east of McKee Road (BC-729). Within the Fraser Heights area, implementation of two trenchless crossings (SFPR East HDD) will allow the Project to avoid disturbance to 1.1 km or 52% of the length with final critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. The feasibility of extending these trenchless crossings to incorporate additional length or implementing another trenchless segment in Fraser Heights was investigated and determined not to be feasible given the corresponding space requirements needed for pipe laydown and sloping terrain.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 24

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Many of the mitigation measures included in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) (see Volume 2 of the Environmental Plans) will serve to reduce disturbance during clearing and construction. Although Project Footprint planning is complete, examples of measures to be implemented to further minimize disturbance include:

• reducing ground disturbance where feasible (e.g., limiting grading and grubbing where practical and safe to do so) to facilitate revegetation;

• retaining mature trees in riparian areas; and

• salvaging and replacing coarse woody debris.

Pacific water shrews are reliant on areas of water (natural stream, wetland or channelized watercourse). Mitigation and restoration of selected watercourses and their riparian areas is a focus of this Plan given their importance and in consideration of guidance from the provincial and federal Recovery Strategies. However, broad measures are also proposed for the area of critical habitat identified by ECCC if the biophysical attributes are present (e.g., salvaging and replacing coarse woody debris). Additionally, many of the Pipeline EPP measures that will be applied within Pacific water shrew critical habitat will serve to minimize disturbance and are included in Table 4.

Following construction, restoration measures specific to Pacific water shrew critical habitat will be implemented within the area of critical habitat identified by ECCC. The objective is to restore habitat similar to pre-construction conditions and in a manner that is consistent with and supports the restoration of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat over time, where current land use allows. For Pacific water shrew, restoration measures will focus on replacing coarse woody debris and revegetation of disturbed areas to restore moist terrestrial microenvironments. Select restoration measures will be focused within the riparian areas of the suitable watercourses identified in Section 4.2, while revegetation efforts and salvage and replacement of coarse woody debris will occur along the length of the pipeline route within critical habitat based on pre-construction conditions.

The revegetation strategy for areas of Pacific water shrew critical habitat is detailed within the Reclamation Management Plan, Riparian Habitat Management Plan and Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Sections 9.0, 8.0 and 5.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans, respectively). Though revegetation measures will be implemented broadly along the Project, additional efforts, such as planting of native vegetation, will be focused within areas of critical habitat. The following revegetation strategies or combination thereof, will be used, dependent on existing land use, landowner agreements on privately owned lands and site-specific conditions:

• natural regeneration;

• seeding with a native grass mix or short-lived cover crop;

• planting of native vegetation and tree seedlings characteristic of suitable habitat; and

• weed management.

Native vegetation will be allowed to revegetate, and a short-lived cover crop or light native grass seeding will be used to minimize soil erosion and weed establishment areas that are prone to these issues. In addition to natural regeneration of native vegetation, tree seedlings and other native vegetation species characteristic of Pacific water shrew habitat (e.g., shrubs, forbs) will be planted within TWS in areas where forested habitat is present prior to construction. To facilitate revegetation of native species and restore moist micro-climatic conditions, replacement of grade materials will focus on restoring microtopography (e.g., pit and mound micro-topography) where present prior to construction and coarse woody debris will be replaced on the pipeline construction footprint within areas of critical habitat where biophysical features and attributes are present. Only low-growing species (herbaceous vegetation, low shrubs) will be used for revegetation within the pipeline easement to maintain required operational access and visibility for monitoring the operational pipeline. Temporarily disturbed areas, including TWS, will not be needed for ongoing operation of the pipeline and therefore will allow for growth of both planted and naturally regenerating native woody species (e.g., trees) over time. Note that exceptions may apply on

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 25

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

privately owned lands where revegetation strategies selected will be determined in consultation with the landowner. Further detail regarding the criteria for implementation of each revegetation strategy and seed mixes are provided in the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and Riparian Habitat Management Plan (Section 8.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). Weeds will be managed along the length of the pipeline route as described in the Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Section 5.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (KMC 2016). The potential for time lag between when Project effects occur and when mitigation and habitat restoration measures are implemented and fully functional have been considered in the development of this Plan. Replacement of coarse woody debris within critical habitat in a timely manner following clean-up will limit the duration of Project effects to this biophysical attribute. To reduce time lag associated with revegetation and restoration of terrestrial habitat, reclamation planning and preparation (e.g., plant salvage, sourcing of shrub/tree plantings) will occur prior to and during construction activities to limit the period between final clean-up and reclamation implementation. Where practical and applicable, larger nursery stock will be used to reduce time associated with vegetation regrowth. Measures to minimize ground disturbance during construction (i.e., limiting grading and grubbing where practical and safe to do so, maintaining low vegetation or vegetated ground mat) will preserve intact root systems and seed bed to facilitate rapid regeneration of vegetation following construction. Revegetation in the short to medium-term will focus on regeneration of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, including species that are characteristic of, and help restore moist microenvironments. Planting of tree seedlings within TWS will help to accelerate establishment of trees within disturbed areas (where forested habitat exists prior to construction); however older forest stages will require decades to regenerate. Project effects associated with barriers or filters to movement and prey species (invertebrate) abundance are linked to reestablishment of vegetation and coarse woody debris on the Project Footprint and time lags will be managed as described above. Time lags will be further reduced by implementation of corrective measures as soon as feasible if measurable targets are found to be underperforming.

5.3 Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Measures The measures in Table 4 describe mitigation and habitat restoration measures applicable to the area of critical habitat identified by ECCC, with specific emphasis on selected watercourse crossings. Table 4 includes applicable mitigation measures from the Pipeline EPP, as well as new measures. Selected measures from the Pipeline EPP are repeated in Table 43 for emphasis and to demonstrate their relevance specific to areas where Pacific water shrew may occur. The measures in Table 4 consider applicable regulatory guidelines and best management practices (see Section 3.3), as well as consultation with Appropriate Government Authorities and species experts (see Appendix B). The measures repeated from the Pipeline EPP are identified in Table 4 with a reference to the Pipeline EPP section where the measures can be found. This Plan will be included as part of the Environmental Management Plans (Section 6.0, Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and summarized and updated in Section 4.0 of Volume 7 of the Environmental Plans. The Construction Manager, in conjunction with an Environmental Inspector, will ensure that the protection measures are implemented.

Biophysical features/attributes of critical habitat were identified during field work in 2015, 2016 and 2017. With reference to features such as trees that provide shade and a moist microenvironment for Pacific water shrew, the evaluation of opportunities for retention and restoration of this biophysical feature will be determined using the results of wildlife field work completed to date, as well as any future baseline wildlife field work, in addition to review and input from the Environmental Inspector, a Wildlife Resource Specialist and the Construction Manager. Flexibility in retention and replacement of biophysical features such as mature trees is necessary due to site-specific conditions and other considerations at the time of clearing (e.g., retaining a tree in TWS). As a result, site-specific locations will be refined based on factors such as location relative to the Project Footprint, and construction, operations or safety requirements. These decisions are best made and implemented in the field. In order to inform these decisions and subsequent mitigation and restoration of biophysical features/attributes, Figure 3 provides a guide to inform decisions and the circumstances that may be encountered. Decisions made regarding the implementation of site-specific mitigation and habitat restoration measures and their final locations will be tracked by the Environmental Inspector and the Construction Manager through a compliance tracking and reporting system and reported in PCEM reports (see Section 7.4).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 26

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4

MITIGATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION MEASURES FOR AREAS WITH THE BIOPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF CRITICAL HABITAT

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Education and 1. Controlled copies of the Pipeline EPP and associated environmental Awareness documents are required to be reviewed by key construction and Contractor personnel prior to construction and will be available to all Contractor staff members during construction (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 2. Report observations of species of concern immediately to an Environmental Inspector. The Environmental Inspector will record the location in the daily reports and locate and mark sightings for future reference on the Environmental As-Built Alignment Sheets. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 3. Implement the Environmental and Compliance Education Program as described in the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 4. An Environmental Inspector is responsible for monitoring compliance with environmental and socio-economic commitments, undertakings and conditions of permits and approvals, as well as applicable environmental legislation, Trans Mountain’s policies, procedures, and industry-accepted standards. An Environmental Inspector may designate responsibility for environmental and socio-economic compliance monitoring in certain cases based on the nature of the activity and the availability of appropriate alternative personnel (e.g., Activity Inspector) (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 5. An Environmental Inspector will organize on-site meetings in consultation with the Construction Manager or designate and, as the need arises, to address resource-specific issues, as well as review construction methodologies (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). Consultation 6. An Environmental Inspector will liaise with Appropriate Government Authorities and the Aboriginal Monitors assigned to the Project in co-operation with the Construction Manager or designate and the Project Environmental Manager (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). Scheduling 7. Schedule Project activity only after a Pacific water shrew salvage has been completed. A salvage cannot occur if frost, heavy rainfall or cold temperatures (no less than 3°C) are expected to occur. Within the South of Clayburn Creek area, scheduling needs to also consider timing for Oregon forestsnail (refer to the Oregon Forestsnail Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan). In this area, a salvage of Pacific water shrew and Oregon forestsnail is best suited for late February/early March depending on other scheduling considerations. Pacific Water Shrew 8. Obtain the necessary permit for a salvage of Pacific water shrew. Adhere to Salvage the conditions of the Permit. Any salvage of Pacific water shrew will be conducted by a qualified Wildlife Resource Specialist. Conduct salvage as close to clearing and construction as possible. 9. Following the salvage, monitor and maintain exclusion fencing installed prior to the salvage to prevent Pacific water shrew from re‑entering the work area until immediately prior to the onset of construction works.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 27

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Species 10. In the event that Pacific water shrew are discovered during clearing or Disturbance construction, implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery and During Encounter Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP). Construction Reduce Habitat 11. Confine all clearing/mowing within the staked/flagged boundaries. Clear Loss – Terrestrial vegetation from only those areas essential for construction. Adhere to Habitat clearing/mowing restrictions associated with riparian buffer areas, and in areas where sensitive environmental features have been identified as outlined on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Volume 8 of the Environmental Plans). [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing] 12. Prior to clearing within the area up to 100 m on either side (where present prior to construction) of identified watercourses (i.e., BC-728h, BC- 729, BC-773.5, BC-774a, BC-774b, and BC 774c) and wetlands (i.e., flat swamp [Abbo-Burn_W1129point51] and basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp [Abbo-Burn_W1129point5]), the Environmental Inspector, with the assistance of a Wildlife Resource Specialist as necessary, will identify mature trees that provide shade located on the edge of the Project Footprint that can be avoided where their retention will not affect construction execution, pipeline operations or maintenance activities, or conflict with applicable safety requirements. The retention of these trees will be approved by the Environmental Inspector and the Construction Manager to ensure safety requirements. Clearly mark locations where clearing is to be narrowed or avoided to retain identified trees. 13. Complete danger tree assessments on the edge of the Project Footprint so that every reasonable effort can be made to retain (and if necessary, modify to remove dangerous portions) mature shade trees as an alternate to complete removal. 14. Reduce the removal of vegetation in wetlands to the extent practical. Maintain low vegetation or vegetated ground mat within the riparian buffer zone of watercourses and wetlands, to the extent practical, by clearing only trees and walking-down low vegetation so low-lying vegetation remains intact. Limit grubbing of cleared trees or mowed shrubs only to the trench line and work side area needed for the vehicle crossing to protect riparian areas. [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing] 15. Reduce grading along the pipeline construction footprint, where practical and safe to do so. This measure applies within riparian areas and where ground conditions are considered competent enough to support equipment traffic without rutting or mixing soils (i.e., are either frozen, have competent sod or vegetation or are matted). [Section 10.0 Topsoil/Root Zone Material Handling and Grading] 16. Limit grading on steep longitudinal slopes to the area needed to allow the safe and efficient passage of equipment, excavation of the trench and installation of the pipe. [Section 10.0 Topsoil/Root Zone Material Handling and Grading] 17. Restrict root grubbing to areas where soil removal is necessary (e.g., trench line and areas to be graded) to reduce surface disturbance and encourage re-sprouting/natural regeneration of trees and shrubs. [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing]

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 28

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Reduce Habitat 18. Salvage and retain coarse woody debris as approved by an Environmental Loss – Terrestrial Inspector, within areas where the resource exists, for later use during Habitat restoration in an effort to emulate pre-construction (baseline) conditions. Coarse woody debris will be salvaged during clearing or immediately prior to topsoil/root zone material handling and grading, under the supervision of the Environmental Inspector or designate. Large pieces of coarse woody debris are preferred; however, smaller pieces can also be salvaged where large pieces are not available. Retain and replace coarse woody debris using the original coarse woody debris found at the site to the extent feasible, and supplement with felled timber where necessary to achieve target volumes. Reduce Habitat 19. Clearly mark the wetland boundaries using signage, flagging or fencing and limit Loss - Aquatic traffic in the vicinity of the flagged/fenced off area, to the extent practical. See Habitat Narrow Down Fencing Dwg. 1 in Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures]

20. Fell timber onto the pipeline construction footprint and away from watercourses and wetlands, where feasible, during survey line clearing. Remove fallen trees that inadvertently land off the pipeline construction footprint or into watercourses or wetlands in a manner that minimizes disturbance. [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing] 21. Immediately prior to watercourse crossing construction at identified watercourses (refer to Section 4.2), salvage and retain large pieces of in-stream coarse woody debris that may be disturbed by construction for later use during restoration in an effort to emulate pre-construction (baseline) conditions. 22. Ensure maintenance of downstream flow conditions (i.e., quantity and quality) at all times when constructing an isolated crossing. If a pump-around method is used to maintain downstream flow, backup pump(s), power supply(s) and hose(s) capacity must be on-site and ready to take over pumping immediately if operating pumps or hoses fail. Pumps and hoses are to be monitored to ensure flow is maintained at all times until the dam materials are removed and normal flow is restored to the channel. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 23. Ensure that water from flumes, dam and pumps, diversion or other methods does not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel. If warranted, place rock rip-rap, tarpaulins, plywood sheeting or other materials to control erosion at the outlet of pump hoses and flumes. Supplement the erosion control materials, if warranted, to control any erosion. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 24. Prevent construction debris from entering a watercourse or wetland. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 25. Limit instream construction to the shortest duration practical given the characteristics of the watercourse and the construction season. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 26. Install a temporary sediment barrier (e.g., sediment fences), where warranted, to eliminate the flow of sediment from spoil piles and disturbed areas into nearby watercourses or wetlands (see Sediment Fence Dwg. 5 in Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP). [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 27. Use the vehicle crossing method identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets and/or in the Watercourse Crossing Inventory (Section 8.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) for watercourses crossed by access roads, unless otherwise approved. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings]

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 29

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Reduce Habitat 28. Install temporary vehicle crossings in a manner that protects the bed and banks Loss - Aquatic of watercourses from erosion, maintains flow, does not disrupt fish passage and Habitat (cont’d) does not interfere with or impede navigation on navigable watercourses. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 29. Ensure that bridge installation does not alter the streambed or banks or require infilling of the channel. Install the entire bridge, including bridge abutments, footings and armouring, above the high watermark of the watercourse unless otherwise approved by the Appropriate Government Authorities. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 30. Use open bottom culverts in identified Pacific water shrew watercourses (refer to Section 4.2), where approved ramp and culvert watercourse crossing installations are to be left in place. Ensure compliance with all respective provincial guidelines (e.g., BC MOE, BC Oil and Gas Commission) when installing open bottom culverts (see Vehicle Crossing –Ramp and Culvert Dwg. 35 in Appendix C of the EPP). 31. Restrict grading to areas adjacent to the wetland boundary to the extent feasible. Direct grading away from wetlands. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 32. Do not wash equipment or machinery in or near watercourses, wetlands or lakes. Control wastewater from construction activities to avoid discharge directly into any body of water. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 33. Ensure that during construction no fuel, lubricating fluids, hydraulic fluids, methanol, antifreeze, herbicides, biocides or other chemicals are dumped on the ground or into watercourses, wetlands or lakes. In the event of a spill, implement the Spill Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP). [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 34. Conduct refueling a minimum of 100 m from any watercourse, wetland or lake unless otherwise approved by an Environmental Inspector. Employ the following measures to limit the risk of fuel spills in water if refueling within 100 m of a watercourse, wetland or lake is approved by an Environmental Inspector: • all containers, hoses, nozzles are free of leaks; • all fuel nozzles are equipped with automatic shut-offs; • Operators are stationed at both ends of the hose during fuelling unless the ends are visible and readily accessible by one Operator; and • fuel remaining in the hose is returned to the storage facility. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] Barriers to 35. Maintain a tight construction spread (i.e., stringing to backfilling) and construct Movement During the pipeline in an efficient manner to limit the duration of sensory disturbance to Construction wildlife. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 36. Identify locations in consultation with an Environmental Inspector where gaps in the slash and/or rollback windrows, if needed, are to be created. Gaps are typically associated with terrain features (e.g., slope changes), crossings (i.e., watercourse, road and pipeline) and bends. Leave gaps at well-used wildlife trails, to the extent practical. [Section 8.0 Survey and Clearing]

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 30

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Traffic and Access 37. Existing access roads and trails are planned for use, where feasible and safe, Management rather than develop new access. [Section 9.0 Access Roads for Pipelines] 38. Avoid equipment access across watercourses once restoration measures have been implemented unless approved watercourse crossing installations are in place. Weeds 39. Ensure that equipment arrives at upgraded construction sites clean and free of soil or vegetative debris. Inspect, verify, and document clean equipment. [Section 7.0 General Pipeline Construction Mitigation Measures] 40. Flag areas identified as having high weed infestations prior to commencement of construction. Control weeds (i.e., using proper application of chemical, mechanical or manual measures, or a combination of all) at locations identified within the pre-construction weed survey and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Volume 8 of the Environmental Plans) to a level that is consistent with current weed management practices on land adjacent to the Project Footprint to reduce the potential for weed infestations following construction. Mitigation measures to be implemented for weeds can be found in: • Section 7.0 of the Pipeline EPP; • the Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Section 5.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans); • the Agricultural Management Plan (Section 2.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans); and • the Biosecurity Management Plan (Section 2.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). [Section 6.0 Pre-Construction Activities]. Habitat 41. Commence clean-up immediately following completion of backfill and erosion Restoration – control activities. Implement measures provided under Clean-up and Terrestrial Habitat Reclamation provided in Section 13.0 of the Pipeline EPP and the Reclamation Management Plan (see Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 42. Replace grade material to a contour that will approximate the pre-construction contour, except where it is not practical to do so. When replacing sidehill or other graded areas is not practical due to the risk of slope failure, the Construction Manager and a Geotechnical Resource Specialist will determine an appropriate grade. [Section 12.0 Backfilling] 43. Replacement of grade material to pre-construction contours should focus on restoration of micro-topography, particularly pit and mound micro-topography (i.e., undulating ground surface), where it exists prior to construction. 44. Replace coarse woody debris that was salvaged and retained during clearing within the Project Footprint. The location and the volume replaced should be similar to pre-construction conditions. Tons/ha of coarse woody debris retained must comply with BC MFLNRO Wildfire Management Branch Fuel Hazard Abatement specifications (BC MFLNRO 2012). Species that pose a forest health risk will not be used. 45. Avoid scalping of the vegetation mat on cleared, ungrubbed vegetation (e.g., riparian areas) as well as lands with a competent sod layer (e.g., tame pasture, hay lands and native grasslands) during backfilling. Use equipment (e.g., clean-up bucket) for final pass of backfilling which will reduce scalping. [Section 12.0 Backfilling]

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 31

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Habitat 46. Use natural regeneration and planting of native vegetation (e.g., tree seedlings Restoration – and shrubs) as specified in the Reclamation Management Plan and Riparian Terrestrial Habitat Habitat Management Plan (Sections 9.0 and 8.0 of Volume 6 of the (cont’d) Environmental Plans, respectively). Species lists and seeding/planting prescriptions are provided in these plans. The reclamation strategy will be compatible with the existing land use and the construction Line List. 47. Install temporary fencing, if warranted, to allow the revegetation treatments to become established and avoid damage to the banks and riparian area by wildlife or livestock. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] Habitat 48. Return the bed and banks of each crossing as close as feasible to their Restoration – pre-construction contours (slope and height). Crossings should not be realigned Aquatic Habitat or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed. Take appropriate measures to reduce the risk of sloughing of the streambanks following construction. Refer to the Riparian Habitat Management Plan and the Reclamation Management Plan (Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) for information on where restoration measures in addition to those identified in the environmental resource-specific mitigation plans for aquatic resources outlined in Section 7.0 of Volume 7 of the Environmental Plans are required to stabilize the banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) and promote the restoration of the pre-construction conditions. Refer to the Watercourse Crossing Inventory (Section 8.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) for site-specific reclamation to be implemented at watercourse crossings. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 49. At identified watercourses (refer to Section 4.2), replace in-stream coarse woody debris salvaged and retained prior to watercourse crossing construction. The location and amount of in-stream coarse woody debris replaced should be similar to pre-construction conditions. Placement of in-stream coarse woody debris should not become a barrier to fish movement or stormwater discharge. 50. Install Erosion Control Matting Dwg.26 or Staked Logs Dwg. 27 (Appendix C of the EPP) or other biodegradable erosion control fabric approved by an Environmental Inspector on disturbed portions of the banks. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 51. Maintain sediment fences or equivalent sediment control structure in place at the base of approach slopes until revegetation of the construction right of way is complete. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] 52. Replant salvaged trees and/or shrubs along the disturbed riparian margins of the wetland as approved by an Environmental Inspector and as identified in the Wetland Survey and Mitigation Plan provided in Section 7.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans. [Section 14.0 Water Crossings] Documentation 53. An Environmental Inspector will review, collect, organize and disseminate all environmentally-related information and documentation that arises during construction, and will be responsible for the preparation of daily Environmental Inspection reports (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans). 54. Environmental information (e.g., erosion concerns or natural drainage patterns) will be collected throughout construction for documentation and the assessment of effectiveness of procedures/measures used to aid or inform the decision making process during post-construction (see the Compliance Management Plan in Volume 10 of the Environmental Plans).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 32

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures [EPP Reference] Documentation 55. The Environmental Inspector will document construction methods, decisions (cont’d) related to implementation and location of mitigation measures and final reclamation measures and issues encountered, as well as communication records for discussions with BC MFLNRO or other regulatory agencies. 56. Ensure sighting records for Pacific water shrew are provided to the Environmental Inspector. Records will be maintained and made available for reporting to applicable regulatory agencies (e.g., BC CDC). Operations 57. Implement the appropriate vegetation management measures in consideration of species at risk and their habitat (e.g., restrict vegetation management to the minimum width required for the safe operation and inspection of the pipeline, and allow vegetation outside of this area to regenerate). 58. Use selective hand-clearing as the preferred method of vegetation control in riparian areas of identified watercourses (refer to Section 4.2). 59. Minimize the use of herbicides within 100 m of identified watercourses and wetlands (refer to Section 4.2). Consider non-chemical options as the primary method to manage non-woody problem vegetation (e.g., mowing or hand pulling). When non-chemical vegetation management options are not practical (e.g., invasive plant removal) utilize spot treatment applications of herbicides as necessary. PCEM 60. Monitor and implement remedial measures, if warranted, to ensure restoration is adequate. Mitigation measures implemented will be monitored for effectiveness as discussed in Section 6.0 and Section 7.0 below.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 33

Figure 3 Retention and Replacement of Biophysical Features/Attributes of Critical Habitat for Pacific Water Shrew1,2

Within Project Footprint (i.e., no Remove tree and utilize as CWD, if feasible possibility of retention)

Mature shade Unsafe and/or temporary workspace (TWS) cannot be trees present reduced within 100 m of identified Conduct danger tree assessment waterbody On the edge of and assess Portions of the tree are Modify tree (i.e., remove Are the Project Footprint feasibility of unsafe and TWS can be dangerous branches) and biophysical (i.e., possibility of 3 avoidance (by reduced retain tree attributes of YES retention) critical habitat narrowing present? cleared area) Tree is safe and TWS Retain tree can be reduced

Coarse woody debris NO (CWD) present in Salvage and retain CWD for use Replace CWD; volumes and locations should be Project Footprint during restoration similar to pre-construction conditions (terrestrial)

• Salvage and retain instream cover objects (large CWD and rocks) • Return bed and banks as close as Trenched feasible to their pre-construction Implement mitigation measures • Implement measures for isolated or open crossing contour; crossings should not be re- in the Pipeline Environmental watercourse crossing methods with emphasis aligned or straightened nor have Protection Plan (EPP) (Volume 2 on maintaining downstream flow; limiting hydraulic characteristics changed of the Environmental Plans) and Aquatic duration of instream activity; eliminating • Take appropriate measures to other applicable management habitat sediment flow reduce risk of sloughing plans. Implement the Wildlife • Replace instream cover objects; the Species of Concern Discovery Implement trenchless crossing measures location and amount should be and Encounter Contingency Trenchless described in the Pipeline EPP (Volume 2 of the similar to preconstruction conditions Plan if wildlife species of crossing concern are encountered during Environmental Plans) construction activities (Appendix B, Volume 2 of the • Implement reduced ground disturbance construction techniques where site conditions allow, as approved by Environmental Plans) Moist, shady, the Environmental Inspector (e.g., reduce grading and grubbing to facilitate restoration) mature forest • Use natural regeneration, planting and seeding as specified in the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans)

1.Guidance provided to inform field-level decisions on the application of mitigation measures to preserve biophysical features/attributes of Pacific water shrew critical habitat. Note, measures in the Pipeline EPP (Volume 2 of the Environmental Plans), the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.1 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and Riparian Habitat Management Plan (Section 8.7 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) are applicable whether the route is in or out of critical habitat 2.Final critical habitat has been identified for Pacific water shrew. The stages of critical habitat are: final (federal Recovery Strategy is final), proposed (federal Recovery Strategy has been reviewed and next step is to be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry for a 60-day consultation); candidate (federal Recovery Strategy has completed internal federal review), and early draft (federal Recovery Strategy has not completed internal federal review). 3.Measures are taken from Table 4 of this Plan. The steps and measures presented above are specific to the biophysical features/attributes of Pacific water shrew critical habitat. Performance indicators and measureable targets have been identified for Pacific water shrew and further detail is provided in Section 6, Table 5 of this Plan. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

6.0 MEASURING MITIGATION AND RESTORATION SUCCESS Mitigation measures will be monitored to evaluate effectiveness. Monitoring will measure performance indicators to determine if the targets outlined in Table 5 are met, and therefore residual effects have been mitigated or reduced such that the survival or recovery of the local population is not adversely affected by the Project. The targets act as triggers for implementation of corrective measures if the mitigation measures are found to be underperforming.

The performance indicators and targets presented in Table 5 may be adjusted based on further review of information (e.g., field data) and consultation with the Appropriate Government Authorities. Given that disturbance to wetlands within critical habitat for Pacific water shrew will be avoided by a trenchless crossing, the performance indictors and measurable targets in Table 5 related to aquatic attributes are specific to watercourses only.

TABLE 5

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MEASURABLE TARGETS FOR PACIFIC WATER SHREW

Goal Performance Indicator Measurable Target 1. Restore vegetation in disturbed habitat Vegetation community composition and cover • Minimum 85% cover of regenerating native (natural to natural vegetation communities that measured by layer: regeneration, seeded or planted) and seeded non-native provide a moist microenvironment • vegetation species list (agronomic) vegetation and litter (< 15% bare ground)1. (where present prior to construction) • % cover native species • No new introduced invasive species/noxious weeds; • % cover seeded non-native species extent of weeds is maintained or reduced from pre- (agronomic) construction conditions. • % cover, density and distribution invasive non-native (weed) species • % cover leaf litter • % cover bare ground • % cover rock 2. Restore watercourse characteristics • Bank stability and profile • Stream bed and banks, riparian area and approach that provide a suitable aquatic slopes are stabilized and restored to pre-construction environment profiles. 3. Retain or replace instream and • Coarse woody debris cover • Amount of coarse woody debris instream (number of terrestrial coarse woody debris pieces in area of the watercourse affected by the Project) is similar to pre-construction conditions (< 20% change). • Average amount of coarse woody debris (volume measured as m3/ha) in upland areas is similar to (no more than 20% decrease) or increased from pre- construction conditions, except where pre-construction conditions exceed the BC MFLRNO Wildfire Hazard Abatement Guidelines (BC MFLNRO 2012) for the ecosystem. 4. Avoid mortality of Pacific water shrew • Incidents involving Pacific water shrew injury • No incidents causing Pacific water shrew mortality or during construction and operations or mortality. injury reported during construction and operations. • Environmental Compliance and Education • 100% of personnel working in areas with potential to Program encounter wildlife species at risk receive environmental • Compliance tracking and documentation and compliance education that includes a species at risk component prior to working on-site. • 100% compliance with reporting and documentation protocols, including environmental issues tracking and reporting. Note: 1 Minimum percent cover target used for typically moist regions/habitat types (e.g., moist forests in Lower Mainland of BC) differs slightly from the minimum percent cover target used for arid regions/habitat types (e.g., Ponderosa pine forests in BC interior) to account for differences in climate and soil conditions (i.e., average temperature, precipitation, soil moisture and soil nutrients).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 35

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

7.0 MONITORING Trans Mountain will monitor the effectiveness of the measures implemented in critical habitat for Pacific water shrew to determine if the goals of this Plan have been met, and to identify the need for corrective measures. Ground-based field work and review of compliance tracking, as well as tracking any potential outstanding or new environmental issues will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation.

7.1 Monitoring Timeframe Monitoring will occur during the construction period and in the first, third and fifth growing seasons following the completion of final clean-up. Trans Mountain will complete a final evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation upon completion of the five-year PCEM period and will determine if targets have been met and whether additional monitoring may be warranted. For example, if corrective measures are needed at site-specific locations, additional monitoring will be completed following their implementation until targets are met.

7.2 Monitoring Strategy The intent of monitoring is to measure performance indicators to determine the effectiveness of mitigation, and inform the need for corrective measures. The measurable targets listed above in Table 5 (Section 6.0) act as triggers for implementation of corrective measures if the mitigation measures are found to be underperforming. Table 6 summarizes the monitoring strategy that will be applied for each goal of the Plan. Additional explanation is provided in the following subsections.

TABLE 6

MONITORING STRATEGY

Goal Monitoring Strategy 1. Restore vegetation in disturbed habitat to natural vegetation • Vegetation sampling communities that provide a moist microenvironment (where • Meandering transect (weed patch location, species, density and distribution) present prior to construction) 2. Restore watercourse characteristics that provide a suitable • Visual inspection of stream profile and banks aquatic environment 3. Retain or replace instream and riparian coarse woody debris • Coarse woody debris transects in upland areas • Coarse woody debris counts (number of pieces) within the Project Footprint instream 4. Avoid mortality of Pacific water shrew during construction • Pre-construction salvage records and operations • Compliance tracking and reporting • Environmental issues tracking and reporting

7.2.1 Habitat Restoration Monitoring The first three goals of the Plan relate to restoration of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. These goals will be achieved by regenerating suitable vegetation, restoration of stream profile during watercourse crossings, and retaining or replacing instream and riparian coarse woody debris. The Riparian Habitat Management Plan (Section 8.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) has been developed to reflect mitigation and restoration measures in this Plan.

Revegetation Restoration of natural vegetation communities that provide a moist microenvironment will be monitored using a vegetation sampling protocol consistent with the PCEM program for the Project (refer to the Reclamation Management Plan [Section 9.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans]). Vegetation sample site locations in Pacific water shrew critical habitat will be located within 100 m of the streambanks at identified watercourses (refer to Section 4.2). Sample locations will be stratified by habitat type and reclamation strategy (e.g., seed mix, natural regeneration, nursery seedling planting), where there is variation in these factors and will also be contingent on landowners agreements on private lands. Within the pipeline easement, vegetation will be maintained as low-growing species (herbaceous vegetation, low shrubs) to maintain operational access and visibility for monitoring the operational pipeline. Within TWS, revegetation will include native woody species (trees, shrubs consistent with adjacent habitat) as well as the low-growing vegetation layer.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 36

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Each vegetation sample will be comprised of a permanent 50 m transect perpendicular to the pipeline construction footprint. Along each 50 m transect, vegetation will be monitored by sampling four 1 m2 plots. Three sample plots will be evenly spaced within the pipeline construction footprint (minimum 5 m apart) and the fourth will be outside of the Project Footprint within the adjacent undisturbed habitat. Each 1 m2 plot centre will be marked with a pin-marker and a GPS location recorded to relocate the plot at the same location in subsequent monitoring years. Restoration monitoring will be completed by qualified professionals. The performance indicators for restoration of disturbed vegetation (Table 5) will be measured in each sample plot (e.g., vegetation cover, species, weeds). Weeds will also be noted within the Project Footprint in the riparian area and adjacent upland forest using a method consistent with the BC Invasive Alien Plant Program standards (BC MFLNRO 2016) to allow detection of weed infestations or spread. Habitat Features and Characteristics Important microhabitat features and habitat characteristics that will be monitored include stream characteristics (stream profile/banks, instream coarse woody debris) and riparian area cover features (coarse woody debris). Monitoring of microhabitat features and characteristics, and associated mitigation success will entail visual inspection of these features/characteristics within the Project Footprint and determining if targets have been met. At watercourses identified as having suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and stream aquatic characteristics (see Section 4.2), visual inspections will record measurable parameters including stream profile, bank stability or erosion and number of instream pieces of coarse woody debris. Instream coarse woody debris counts were completed in 2016 at the two identified watercourses in South of Clayburn Creek (i.e., BC-728h and BC-729). This information will be collected at applicable watercourses in Fraser Heights prior to construction in 2017. Terrestrial coarse woody debris will be measured along transects using an approach derived from Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) Ground Sampling Procedures for Coarse Woody Debris (BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2007). For the purposes of this Plan, coarse woody debris is defined as dead woody material greater than 10 cm diameter that is above the soil (i.e., not buried) and is not self-supporting (BC MFLNRO 2010, BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2007). Coarse woody debris pieces may be logs or large diameter stumps with roots. Each coarse woody debris sampling transect will consist of two 24 m transects oriented perpendicular to each other, as described in the VRI procedure. Along each transect, diameter, length and tilt angle will be recorded for each piece of coarse woody debris encountered to enable a volume (m3/ha) calculation using the VRI formula for scattered coarse woody debris (BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2007, 2009). The location of preliminary transects were selected in the field in 2016 by qualified professionals in representative locations. This included seven transects within in South of Clayburn Creek and three in Fraser Heights. Within these representative areas, transect location and orientation within the Project Footprint were randomly established. Transects do not extend off the Project Footprint. Additional monitoring areas will be established within Fraser Heights prior to construction, where land access was not granted in 2016. Coarse woody debris will be measured during the first year of monitoring and compared to baseline conditions. Subsequent monitoring of coarse woody debris will not be completed in monitoring years three and five if targets are met. Although the measurable target for coarse woody debris is to replace volumes similar to pre-construction conditions, Trans Mountain must consider the BC MLFNRO Wildfire Hazard Abatement Guidelines (BC MFLNRO 2012). These guidelines provide a procedure for conducting fire hazard assessments and abatement, and include thresholds for fuel hazard (debris) based on dominant woody species, slope, aspect and provincial risk mapping. In many areas, long-term fire suppression has resulted in higher than natural coarse woody debris accumulation. Application of the guidelines may necessitate replacement of smaller volumes of coarse woody debris than exist pre-construction. Target volumes of coarse woody debris replacement for the Project are provided in the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans) and consider several factors, including average baseline coarse woody debris volume measured on the Project Footprint within critical habitat, baseline coarse woody debris volume data for biogeoclimatic subzones provided by the BC MFLNRO Forest and Range Evaluation Program (Snowdon pers. comm.), the Fuel Hazard Assessment and Abatement Fire Risk Map that identifies fire risk in the Project area and the Wildfire Hazard Abatement Guidelines (BC MFLNRO 2012). Further detail is provided in the Reclamation Management Plan (Section 9.0 of Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 37

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

7.2.2 Mortality Monitoring The final goal of the Plan to avoid Project-caused mortality of Pacific water shrew will be achieved by conducting a salvage program prior to construction activities, and mandatory environmental and compliance education. Mitigation success for mortality avoidance will be monitored by tracking and reviewing compliance with environmental and compliance education, documentation for pre-construction salvage results, and tracking and reporting any environmental issues documented during the construction phase of the Project. 7.3 Corrective Measures The results of monitoring will inform the need for corrective measures. Depending on the performance indicator, evaluation against the measurable target may be conducted during construction, or at each monitoring year (i.e., years one, three and five). If, at any point during the five-year monitoring program, performance indicators are found to be underperforming and are unlikely to meet the measurable targets within the five-year timeframe, the corrective measures will be implemented as soon as feasible. The need for and type of corrective measures will be determined using the following systematic approach in Figure 4, which will be applied to each monitoring year during the monitoring program. Corrective measures will be implemented in a timely manner. Where corrective measures may be implemented to achieve the targets and goals of the Plan, additional monitoring will be completed following their implementation until monitoring results indicate the target has been met. The adaptive approach to monitoring and implementing corrective measures will improve understanding of the optimal measures and conditions for mitigation implementation that are most effective.

Figure 4 Adaptive Approach to the Application of Corrective Measures

Examples of corrective actions that may be applied in the event that the performance indicators are found to be underperforming and unlikely to meet the measurable targets within the five-year timeframe are presented in Table 7.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 38

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE 7

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

Example of Example of Corrective Action Goal Measurable Target Underperforming Target for Underperforming Target 1. Restore • Minimum 85% cover of regenerating native • Less than 85% cover of • Supplement existing reclamation prescription vegetation in (natural regeneration, seeded or planted) revegetating native with additional seeding and/or planting. disturbed habitat and seeded non-native (agronomic) (natural regeneration, • Review characteristics of site, and reclamation to natural vegetation and litter (< 15% bare ground). seeded or planted) and prescription, and modify as necessary. vegetation seeded non-native communities that (agronomic) vegetation provide a moist and litter (>15% bare microenvironmen ground). t (where present • No new introduced invasive • New invasive • Implement mowing or hand pulling to manage prior to species/noxious weeds; extent of weeds is species/noxious weeds spread of weeds, or spot treatment applications construction). maintained or reduced from pre- are found and/or extent of herbicides as necessary. construction conditions. has increased. 2. Restore • Stream bed and banks, riparian area and • Erosion or sloughing of • Stabilize and control erosion using methods watercourse approach slopes are stabilized and watercourse bed or banks, recommended by QAES/QEP. Examples of characteristics that restored to pre-construction profiles. riparian area or approach corrective measures are included in the Riparian provide a suitable slopes resulting from Habitat Management Plan (Section 8.0 of aquatic pipeline construction Volume 6 of the Environmental Plans). environment. activities. 3. Retain or replace • Amount of coarse woody debris instream • The amount of coarse • Determine if instream coarse woody debris have instream and (number of pieces in area of the woody debris instream changed throughout the reach as a result of terrestrial coarse watercourse affected by the Project) is and/or in upland areas is normal channel dynamics. woody debris. similar to pre-construction conditions (< less than pre-construction • Determine if additional instream cover objects 20% change). conditions (>20% would improve habitat conditions. If yes, • Average amount of coarse woody debris in change). supplement cover objects as guided by a upland areas (volume measured as m3/ha) QAES/QEP (e.g., add coarse woody debris is similar to (no more than 20% decrease) and/or large rocks within the watercourse). or increased from pre-construction • Increase the amount of terrestrial coarse woody conditions, except where pre-construction debris on the Project Footprint to more closely conditions exceed the BC MFLRNO emulate pre-construction conditions, except Wildfire Hazard Abatement Guidelines (BC where increasing the volume of coarse woody MFLNRO 2012) for the ecosystem debris is in conflict with the BC MFLNRO Wildfire Hazard Abatement Guidelines (BC MFLNRO 2012) for the ecosystem. 4. Avoid mortality of • No incidents causing Pacific water shrew • Pacific water shrew is • Review protocols used during pre-construction Pacific water shrew mortality or injury reported during observed within the work salvage and identify insufficiencies. Track and during construction construction and operations. area, following the report results. and operations. completion of a Pacific water shrew salvage. • 100% of personnel working in in areas with • Personnel on-site have • Enroll worker(s) in next available environmental potential to encounter wildlife species at not received and compliance training session. risk receive environmental and compliance environmental and education that includes a species at risk compliance education. component, prior to working on-site. • 100% compliance with reporting and • Protocols for • Review tracking and reporting protocol to identify documentation protocols, including environmental issues insufficiencies. Implement additional training for environmental issues tracking and tracking and reporting are responsible personnel. reporting. not being followed.

7.4 Reporting Results of PCEM for Pacific water shrew will be submitted to the NEB on or before January 31 following the first, third and fifth complete growing seasons after completing final clean-up as per NEB Condition 151. The PCEM reports will provide detailed results of baseline monitoring field work, detail on the implementation of site-specific mitigation and habitat restoration measures, information on the indicators measured and their performance in reaching the measurable target, the monitoring methods used, and details of corrective actions taken (if any), as well as an updated consultation record. The environmental monitoring report filed after the fifth full growing season after completing clean-up, the report will include information on the effectiveness of mitigation and corrective actions and how learnings are applied by Trans Mountain. The report will also include information on those goals that have not been achieved during the duration of the PCEM program and the need for any further corrective actions and monitoring.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 39

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

8.0 CONCLUSION Field work to collect information on the presence/absence of biophysical attributes of critical habitat relative to the pipeline route in identified critical habitat was conducted in June 2014, August/September 2015 October 2016 and January 2017. Five watercourses and two wetlands were identified as having suitable habitat for Pacific water shrew given the presence of biophysical attributes and aquatic characteristics. In South of Clayburn Creek, these are: BC-728h and BC- 729. In Fraser Heights, these are: BC-774a, BC-774b, BC 774c, the flat swamp (Abbo-Burn_W1129point51) and the basin marsh surrounded by riparian swamp (Abbo-Burn_W1129point5). Of these, the two wetlands and one watercourse (BC- 774a) will be avoided in the Fraser Heights area as part of the SFPR East HDD trenchless crossings.

Implementation of proposed mitigation and restoration measures will be focused in these areas (5 watercourses and two wetlands) up to 100 m on either side of these watercourses and wetlands and broadly within the area of critical habitat identified by ECCC where biophysical attributes are present prior to construction.

The focus of the Plan is to avoid, minimize and restore habitat on-site as per the mitigation hierarchy. The goals and mitigation measures are designed to effectively alleviate or minimize residual Project effects on Pacific water shrew. Performance indicators and measurable targets have been developed and shared with Appropriate Government Authorities for their feedback. The performance indicators are intended to measure and monitor the success of the mitigation and habitat restoration measures to demonstrate that measurable targets have been met and therefore residual effects have been mitigated or reduced such that the survival or recovery of the local population is not adversely affected by the Project. Measures to reduce the residual effect of the Project on Pacific water shrew have been implemented during Project planning and will continue through the remaining phases of the Project with guidance from relevant government policies and management objectives, as well as consultation and incorporation of applicable TEK and TLU studies.

The PCEM program will report the progress of the performance indicators and measurable targets in the first, third and fifth growing seasons following the completion of final clean-up. After the fifth growing season, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the targets after implementation of mitigation and any corrective actions will be provided. This will detail what residual effects remain (if any) and assist Appropriate Government Authorities in determining whether an acceptable level of impact for which no additional mitigation would be needed has been achieved. BC EAO Condition 16 requires a Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Preliminary Offset Plan that also requires this information in order to determine the need for offsets. BC EAO Condition 16 is due at least six months before the commencement of operations, and if after five years after the commencement of operations. A final offset plan is required if monitoring of habitats indicates that impacts remain after five years following the commencement of operations

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 40

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

9.0 REFERENCES 9.1 Personal Communication Lee, Chris. Principal / Senior Biologist. Aquaterra Environmental Ltd. Vancouver, BC.

Snowdon, B. Resource Stewardship Evaluation Analyst. Sustainable Forest Management Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

9.2 Literature Cited British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2014. Endangered Species and Ecosystems – Confidential Sensitive Occurrences (digital file). Victoria, BC. Received via email November 6, 2014, Last Update Check: November 6, 2014.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2017. Provincial Red and Blue Lists. BC Ministry of Environment. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/red-blue.html. Accessed: March 2017.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014a. Policy for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Policy): Working Document. Victoria, BC. 4 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014b. Procedures for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Procedures): Version 1.0. Ecosystems Branch, Environmental Sustainability and Strategic Policy Division. Victoria, BC. 68 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2007. Vegetation Resources Inventory Ground Sampling Procedures - Version 4.7. Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch. Victoria, BC. 240pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2009. Vegetation Resources Inventory Sample Data Compilation Process – Version 4.1. Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch. Victoria, BC. 26 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2010. Chief Forester’s Guidance on Coarse Woody Debris Management. May 2010. 7 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. A Guide to Fuel Hazard Assessment and Abatement in British Columbia. Wildfire Management Branch. Province of BC: Victoria, BC. 19 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2016. Invasive Alien Plant Program Reference Guide. Website: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/plants/RefGuide.htm. Accessed: October 2016.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/accounts.html. Accessed: June 2014.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Pacific water shrew Sorex bendirii in Canada. Ottawa, ON. 28 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2017. Canadian Species at Risk. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed: March 2017.

Craig, V.J, R.G. Vennesland and K.E. Welstead. 2010. Best Management Practices Guidelines for Pacific Water Shrew in Urban and Rural Areas – Working Draft. BC Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 39 pp.

Environment Canada. 2014a. Final, Proposed, Candidate and Early Candidate/Draft Critical Habitat for the Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Shape-files provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. November 2014.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 41

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Environment Canada. 2014b. Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa, ON. 35 pp. + Appendix.

Environment Canada. 2014c. Proposed, Candidate and Early Candidate Critical Habitat Maps for the Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Hard Copy Maps provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. April 2014.

Environment Canada. 2015a. Final, Proposed, Candidate and Early Candidate/Draft Critical Habitat for the Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Shape-files provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. August 2015.

Environment Canada 2015b. Hearing Order OH-001-2014 Trans Mountain ULC Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Written Submission of Environment Canada to the National Energy Board. May 27, 2015. 295 pgs. Filing ID A4L8Y6.

Government of Canada. 2017. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca. Accessed: March 2017.

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. 2016. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan. Website: http://www.kindermorgan.com/content/docs/kmc_row_ivmp.pdf. Accessed: June 2016.

Pacific Water Shrew Recovery Team. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 27 pp.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2013. Trans Mountain Expansion Project, An Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act. Calgary, AB. Filing ID A3S2Q3.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2014. Supplemental Wildlife Technical Report for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Project. December 2014. Filing ID A4H6C8.

9.3 GIS References Environment Canada. 2016. Critical Habitat (digital file). Current to August 19, 2015. Acquired via email: December 16, 2016. ESRI. 2016. World Imagery map service (digital file). Redlands, CA. Available: via ArcGIS Online, visit http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9. Web Map Service Layer Credits: Esri, Digital Globe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community. Accessed Online April 20, 2016. IHS Inc. 2004. IHS Hydro Line Data (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received: via DVD, visit http://www.ihs.com for more info. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: November 16, 2015. IHS Inc. 2016. IHS Road Segments (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received: via DVD, visit http://www.ihs.com for more info. Acquired: April 13, 2016. Update Interval: Monthly. Kinder Morgan Canada. 2012. Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: May 9, 2012. Last Update Check: N/A. Kinder Morgan Canada. 2012. Contour (digital file). Calgary, AB. Acquired: August 1, 2012. Last Update Check: N/A. Kinder Morgan Canada. 2016. B/W & Colour Imagery: 2008-2015 (digital files). Calgary, AB. Acquired September 2016. Kinder Morgan Canada. 2016. Facility Footprint (digital file). Calgary, AB. Acquired: May 6, 2016. Last Update Check: N/A. Kinder Morgan Canada. 2016. Master Crossing List (digital file). Provided by KMC December 23, 216 via FTP.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 42 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Metro Vancouver. 2011. Generalized Land Use Classification – 2011 (Surrey Bend Regional Park). Vancouver, BC. Last Updated June 11, 2015. Acquired: March 28, 2016 via website. NRCan. 2007-2011. National Hydro Network (digital files). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nhn/index.html. Acquired: April 2012. Last Update Check: May 2012. NRCan. 2012. CanVec -Transportation - 1020009 Railway (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/topographic.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: November 2012. UPI. 2016. Proposed KPs, Centerline, Project footprint - SSEID005 (digital files). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: January 10, 2017.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page 43

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TEK AND TLU ACTIVITIES FOR TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES THAT CROSS FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT FOR PACIFIC WATER SHREW

Aboriginal Traditional Wildlife Field Studies Territory TEK Participation TLU Participation Cowichan Tribes None Independent, third-party Traditional Marine and Resource Use (TMRU) study complete. Final report received on November 29, 2013. Halalt First Nation None Independent, third-party TMRU study complete. Final report received on December 12, 2013. Katzie First Nation None Funding for a Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU) study has been discussed but the parties have been unable to reach agreement. Independent, third-party Cultural Background Report was filed as confidential evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Kwantlen First Nation May 23 to 28, 2013 Independent third-party TLU study complete. Final report received on November 18, 2014. May 28 to June 7, 2013 Kwantlen First Nation filed additional TLU information as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Lake Cowichan First Nation None TMRU not requested by Lake Cowichan First Nation. Leq’á:mel First Nation May 23 to 28, 2013 Leq’a:mel First Nation conducted a TLU map review on April 23, 2013; TLU interviews and May 28 to June 7, 2013 overflight on September 11, 2013; ground reconnaissance on September 12 to 13, 2013 and had July 23 to 30, 2013 their results review mitigation meeting on November 8, 2013. Lyackson First Nation None Independent, third-party TMRU study complete. Final report received on November 15, 2014. Lyackson First Nation also filed an additional Land and Occupancy Study as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Matsqui First Nation None Independent third-party TLU Historical Land Use, Territory, and Aboriginal Title of the Matsqui People study complete. Study received and filed as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Matsqui First Nation has requested confidentiality in its engagement in the Project. Penelakut First Nation None Independent, third-party TMRU study complete. Final report received on December 12, 2013. Seabird Island Band September 9 to 10, 2013 Independent, third-party TLRU study (underway). Seabird Island Band submitted an intent to provide a final Aboriginal Interest and Use Study to KMC as evidence to the NEB on May 27, 2015. Semiahmoo First Nation None Independent, third-party TLU/TMRU study (underway). Interim report received December 4, 2014. Finalize in Quarter 1 of 2015. Skawahlook First Nation None TLRU study not requested by Skawahlook First Nation. Shxw'ow'hamel First Nation May 28 to June 8, 2013 Final independent, third-party Traditional Use and Occupancy Study and Cultural Heritage Impact July 23 to August 1, 2013 Assessment received April 27, 2015 and filed as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. September 9 to 10, 2013 Soowahlie Indian Band None Joint third-party Integrated Cultural Assessment with Sumas First Nation, Yakweakwioose First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Cheam First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Skowkale First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited (underway). Final report received on March 26, 2014. Stz'uminus First Nation None Independent, third-party TMRU study complete. Final report received on December 9, 2013 and filed as evidence with the NEB on May 27, 2015. Sumas First Nation None Joint Integrated Cultural Assessment with Cheam First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y Village, Skowkale First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Yakweakwioose First Nation led by Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe Management Limited. Draft indicator report received on November 15, 2013. Final report received on March 26, 2014. Tsleil-Waututh Nation None TLRU study not requested by Tsleil-Waututh Nation. Third-party TLRU received and submitted as evidence to the NEB on May 27, 2015.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page A-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

APPENDIX B

CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

Consultation and engagement activities related to the Project were completed with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, affected landowners/tenants and species experts. Opportunities to discuss the Pacific water shrew and identify issues or concerns were also provided to public stakeholders during meetings, workshops and ongoing engagement activities.

Consultation and engagement opportunities began in May 2012 with the Project announcement and are ongoing.

1.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW: DRAFT PLAN DEVELOPMENT Reports on public consultation activities completed between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 were filed with the NEB and are available in the Application (Volume 3A: Stakeholder and Volume 3B: Aboriginal; Filing ID A55987) as well as in Consultation Update No. 1 and Errata, Technical Update No. 1 (Filing ID A59343) / Consultation Update 2 (Filing IDs A62087 and A62088), Consultation Update 3 (Filing IDs A4H1W2 through A4H1W8) and Consultation Update 4 (Filing ID A72224). These reports include results of consultation conducted to June 30, 2015, identification of issues and concerns as well as Trans Mountain’s response and are included in Table B-1. Where appropriate, Trans Mountain’s response has been updated to reflect information developed since the original response was provided during the NEB proceeding for the Project.

Consultation and engagement activities completed between July 1, 2015 and February 2017 have not been filed on the public record with the NEB. Any new issues and concerns regarding Pacific water shrew identified during this period, as well as Trans Mountain’s response, are described below.

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW: DRAFT PLAN The draft Plan was posted on www.transmountain.com/environmental-plans on September 16, 2016. The comment period closed on January 13, 2017, although additional Appropriate Government Authority and potentially affected Aboriginal group feedback was considered up until February 2017. Email or mail notification regarding the Plan was sent to 141 public stakeholders, 17 regulatory authorities, 17 Aboriginal groups and all affected landowners. The notification included a summary description of the Plan, a request for review, the timing of the comment period and contact information. Aboriginal groups were offered the opportunity for an in-person meeting to review the Plan. See Appendix C for a complete list of notified stakeholders.

In addition to direct notification, the online posting of each Plan was promoted through Trans Mountain's weekly e-newsletter, Trans Mountain Today, which provides Project updates, regulatory information, stories and interviews to more than 6,000 subscribers. Each week Trans Mountain Today included a focus on a specific plan, or group of plans, as well as a reminder of all plans available for review.

2016:

• September 22 - Wildlife Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans;

• September 29 - Pipeline EPPs;

• October 6 - Air Quality Management Plans;

• October 13 - Watercourse and Water Ecosystems Plans;

• October 20 - Vegetation Management Plans;

• October 27 - Air Quality Plans;

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

• November 3 - Socio-Economic Effects Monitoring Plan;

• November 10 - Access Management Plan;

• December 22 - General promotion all plans; and

• December 29 - General promotion all plans.

2017:

• January 5 - General promotion all plans; and

• January 12 - General promotion all plans.

Trans Mountain is committed to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the Project. The start and end date for the review and comment period for each environmental management plan is defined. These timelines are required to allow time for preparation of the final Plan in order to meet regulatory requirements and NEB submission dates.

3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT: ACTIVITIES AND FEEDBACK Consultation and engagement activities completed with identified stakeholder groups are described below, including: public stakeholders (Section 3.1); regulatory authorities (Section 3.2); Aboriginal groups (Section 3.3); and landowner/tenants (Section 3.4).

Feedback on the draft Plan, Trans Mountain’s response, and where each issue or concern is addressed in the Plan has been outlined in each section according to stakeholder group.

3.1 Public Consultation 3.1.1 Public Consultation Summary – May 2012 to June 2015 Feedback regarding Pacific water shrew received during public consultation and engagement activities between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 included concerns with routing in Surrey Bend Regional Park and the area of Fraser Heights given the recorded occurrences of Pacific water shrew and presence of suitable habitat.

General issues and concerns regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat received during this period were submitted to the NEB in the Application or in subsequent filings (Project proceedings). Table B-1 provides a summary of the key themes with relevance to Pacific water shrew.

TABLE B-1

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION - MAY 2012 TO JUNE 20151

Issue or Concern Summary Trans Mountain Response Where Addressed Potential Project effects Potential Project effects, as well as mitigation to reduce residual Project effects to Pacific water shrew Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 5.0 to species at risk have been considered in the development of this Plan. of this Plan Protection of wildlife Project planning and implementation includes measures to avoid or reduce Project effects to wildlife Sections 7.2.10 and habitat and species at and wildlife habitat, particularly for species at risk. The Application presented detailed mitigation 7.2.11 of Volume 5A of risk measures specific to wildlife and wildlife habitat, as well as Project EPPs that detail environmental the ESA procedures and mitigation measures to be implemented during construction of the various Pipeline EPP (see components of the Project. The measures serve to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential adverse Volume 2 of the environmental effects. Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate Project effects to Pacific water Environmental Plans) shrew have been considered and developed as part of this Plan. NEB Condition 44: Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans (i.e., Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-1 Cont'd

Issue or Concern Summary Trans Mountain Response Where Addressed Protection of parks and Several adjustments to the pipeline route have been made since the Application was filed in Section 5.1.1 of this Plan ecologically sensitive December 2013, including adjustments within the corridor, minimizing of the workspace and avoiding areas some parks, where feasible. Trans Mountain has relocated and reconfigured the pipeline alignment and design to improve constructability, avoid congestion in urban areas and reduce the length within Surrey Bend Regional Park, while also attempting to parallel existing linear corridors and/or locate the pipeline route in already established transportation/utility corridors Note: 1 Included in NEB Project Proceedings 3.1.2 New Interests, Issues, Concerns and Response – July 2015 to February 2017 No new issues or concerns specific to this Plan were identified through public consultation and engagement activities between July 2015 and February 2017.

3.2 Regulatory Consultation Trans Mountain has initiated consultation and will continue to work with Appropriate Government Authorities to ensure that the measures implemented to avoid, minimize and mitigate Project effects on Pacific water shrew and their habitat align with relevant government policy. A summary of consultation related to wildlife and wildlife habitat is provided in Table 2.2.1 of the Wildlife Technical Report (Filing ID A3S2Q3) (Trans Mountain 2013) and Table 2.2.1 of the Supplemental Wildlife Report (Filing ID A4H6D2 ) (Trans Mountain 2014).

3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation Summary – May 2012 to June 2015 Consultation applicable to Pacific water shrew received during regulatory engagement activities between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 is summarized in Table B-2.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-2

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PACIFIC WATER SHREW (MAY 2012 TO JUNE 2015)

Where Method of Incorporated in the Name and Title Contact Date Comments Plan ECCC Harp Gill Meeting in April 17, 2013 Reviewed the proposed work plans for N/A (early planning Senior Environmental Assessment Officer Delta, BC the Project related to wetlands, for Facilities Jennifer Wilson vegetation and wildlife. Specific to Application) Special Projects Officer terrestrial wildlife, candidate wildlife Andrew Robinson indicator species, study area boundaries Senior Environmental Assessment Officer and field work were discussed. Pacific Rene McKibbin water shrew was identified as an Environmental Assessment Officer indicator species (coastal riparian small mammals). Martin Gebauer Advisor to ECCC Paul Gregoire Senior Environmental Assessment Officer Jennifer Wilson, Environment Assessment Email September 9, 2013 ECCC provided hard-copy maps N/A (superseded by Officer showing “proposed” critical habitat for new information) Pacific water shrew. Megan Harrison, Environmental Assessment Email November 25, 2013 ECCC provided a description of the N/A (superseded by Officer biophysical attributes of critical habitat new information) for Pacific water shrew. Agathe LeBeau, Environmental Assessment Email December 23, 2013 ECCC provided a Summary of Draft N/A (superseded by Program Analyst Critical Habitat Information for TMEP- new information) December 2013, which included draft biophysical attribute descriptions for proposed critical habitat for Pacific water shrew, as well as activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat. Jennifer Wilson, Environment Assessment Email April 3, 2014 ECCC provided updated hard-copy N/A (superseded by Officer maps for proposed critical habitat, as new information) well as an updated version of Summary of Draft Critical Habitat Information for TMEP - March 2014. Jennifer Wilson, Special Projects Officer Meeting in July 3, 2014 Reviewed critical habitat overlap with the Section 5.1 Andrew Robinson, Acting Head, Canadian Delta, BC Project including the two areas identified Wildlife Service (CWS) Environmental for Pacific water shrew (South of Assessment Program Clayburn Creek and Fraser Heights). Martin Gebauer, Gebauer and Associates Discussed pipeline routing in detail and Wendy Easton, CWS challenges to avoiding these areas. Leah de Montreuil, CWS Within the South of Clayburn Creek area, Trans Mountain noted constraints Caroline Wells, CWS to routing were associated with Kella Sadler, Senior Species at Risk residential communities, limited options Biologist, CWS (on phone) for a connected corridor through Ken Brock, CWS (on phone) Abbotsford, and topography associated Lucy Reiss, CWS (on phone) with Sumas Mountain (where there will Miles Zurawell, CWS (on phone) be issues with grade). All of the Hugo Gherbavaz, CWS (on phone) alternative routes examined did not meet screening level requirements to be identified as a route alternative and it made most sense to parallel the existing TMPL right-of-way through this area (can also share this workspace). The drawbacks of trenchless crossings were noted (i.e., greater space needed at drill entry/exit).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-2 Cont'd

Where Method of Incorporated in the Name and Title Contact Date Comments Plan Jennifer Wilson, Special Projects Officer See above See above Within the Fraser Heights area, ECCC See above Andrew Robinson, Acting Head, CWS acknowledged the routing challenges for Environmental Assessment Program the Project, especially since recent work Martin Gebauer, Gebauer and Associates completed for the SFPR installed an Wendy Easton, CWS elevated road (bridge) to avoid important Leah de Montreuil, CWS wetland habitat. The TMEP corridor crosses an area that was avoided by this Caroline Wells, CWS road. Salvage work was conducted for Kella Sadler, Senior Species at Risk the SFPR and two Pacific water shrews Biologist, CWS (on phone) were captured. Trans Mountain provided Ken Brock, CWS (on phone) a summary of the alternative routing Lucy Reiss, CWS (on phone) being investigated. Miles Zurawell, CWS (on phone) ECCC noted that although critical habitat Hugo Gherbavaz, CWS (on phone) (cont’d) for Pacific water shrew is currently proposed, it will be finalized in 2014. (Note, a final Recovery Strategy for Pacific water shrew was posted on the SARA Public Registry on December 10, 2014). Brett Marchant, Ecosystem Analyst, Species Email August 11, 2014 ECCC provided a shapefile of detailed Section 3.2 at Risk Recovery Unit polygons of final critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. Coral deShield, Head: Program and Meeting in April 10, 2015 Reviewed in detail Project routing and Section 5.1 Planning Coordination Surrey, BC interaction with critical habitat including Rachel Mayberry, Environmental (with BC Pacific water shrew. Discussed the Assessment MFLNRO in rationale for routing and challenges with Matthew Huntley, Species at Risk attendance) routing, as well as construction techniques investigated. Trans Mountain provided a detailed overview of trenchless crossing methods and factors to consider. It was noted that although HDD and bore methods minimize disturbance over the immediate drill path, extra area is required at each end of the HDD or bore path for entry and exit holes, equipment and pipe set up, pipe lay-down areas, as well as for topsoil and subsoil storage. Trenchless crossings in many cases have multiple benefits, however, the location of the additional disturbance is a key consideration.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-2 Cont'd

Where Method of Incorporated in the Name and Title Contact Date Comments Plan Coral deShield, Head: Program and See above See above Within the South of Clayburn Creek See above Planning Coordination area, opportunities to avoid critical Rachel Mayberry, Environmental habitat would result in the creation of a Assessment new linear corridor, on sloping terrain Matthew Huntley, Species at Risk and in proximity or through residential (cont’d) development. Within critical habitat, the proposed route is parallel to the existing TMPL right-of-way for its entire length. It was noted that given the proximity to McKee Road and the Ledgeview Golf Couse, steeply sloping terrain, numerous bends in the pipeline route and limited space, a trenchless crossing at the unnamed tributary to Clayburn Creek was not feasible. With reference to the Fraser Heights area, Trans Mountain provided an update on routing alignment and design (since the Application) that were implemented to improve constructability, avoid congestion in the urban areas and reduce the length in Surrey Bend Regional Park, while also attempting to parallel existing linear corridors and/or locate the pipeline route in already established transportation/utility corridors. Avoidance of critical habitat is challenging given the density of development in this area. BC MFLNRO: South Coast Region, Surrey Scott Barrett, Resource Stewardship Telephone April 22, 2014 Discussed mitigation strategies for Section 5.3 Manager selected species including Pacific water shrew. Andrea Cowgill, Land and Resource Telephone May 13, 2014 BC MFLNRO provided hard-copy maps N/A (superseded by Specialist of areas of concern for Pacific water Final Recovery shrew. Strategy) Scott Barrett, Resource Stewardship Meeting in November 25, 2014 Informal meeting to provide status All Sections of this Manager Surrey, BC update, and to discuss key species and Plan Ian Blackburn, Ecosystems Head mitigation, including Pacific water shrew. Andrea Cowgill, Land and Resource The general outline and content of a Specialist “mitigation plan” was presented. BC Kristina Robbins, Ecosystem Biologist MFLNRO noted that PCEM is an important component of the mitigation Kim Welstead, Ecosystem Biologist plan. BC MFLNRO also noted that baseline surveys to “capture” Pacific water shrew in areas identified as critical habitat do not need to be completed, and the focus should be on avoidance and mitigation. Scott Barrett, Resource Stewardship Email March 17, 2015 Provided a draft copy of Pacific Water N/A Manager Shrew Mitigation Plan for review, Ian Blackburn, Ecosystems Head primarily to receive feedback on report Andrea Cowgill, Land and Resource content and mitigation measures. No Specialist feedback was provided by BC MFLNRO. Scott Barrett, Resource Stewardship Meeting in March 19, 2015 Discussed Project routing in detail and Sections 3.2 and 5.1 Manager Surrey, BC interaction with critical habitat including Ian Blackburn, Ecosystems Head Pacific water shrew and review habitat Andrea Cowgill, Land and Resource model for Pacific water shrew prepared Specialist for the Project. BC MFLNRO noted they Kristina Robbins, Ecosystem Biologist were testing eDNA for Pacific water shrew. Kim Welstead, Ecosystem Biologist

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-2 Cont'd

Where Method of Incorporated in the Name and Title Contact Date Comments Plan Scott Barrett, Resource Stewardship Meeting in April 10, 2015 See above under ECCC. Section 5.1 Manager Surrey, BC Ian Blackburn, Ecosystems Head (with ECCC in Andrea Cowgill, Land and Resource attendance) Specialist

3.2.2 Feedback Regarding the Draft Plan A summary of consultation applicable to Pacific water shrew received during regulatory engagement activities between July 2015 and February 2017 related to the draft Plan is described in Table B-3. No feedback specific to this Plan was received during the September 16, 2016 to February 2017 review and feedback period.

ECCC has indicated that they intend to provide comment on the Plan, however were unable to do so within the specified review and feedback period. Trans Mountain will continue to consult with ECCC regarding the Plan and will consider their feedback prior to Project activity. Any relevant modifications or adjustments to mitigation measures will be reviewed, and their implementation reported in the PCEM report.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-3

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PACIFIC WATER SHREW (JULY 2015 TO FEBRUARY 2017)

Method of Date of Consultation Invited Stakeholder Group/Agency Name Contact Activity Stakeholder Feedback, Comment or Information Exchange Trans Mountain Response or Comment Where Incorporated in the Plan Kristina Robbins, Fish and Aquatic Wildlife Telephone May 27, 2016 For Pacific water shrew, BC MFLNRO noted that eDNA work planned for 2015 had not been Trans Mountain provided an update on the Project, and discussed NEB Condition 44, including Sections 6.0 and 7.0 Resources Section Head (new position), BC completed. Pacific water shrew and the proposed restoration and monitoring approach and consideration of MFLNRO, South Coast Region, Surrey “time lags”. Requested that BC MFLNRO review a draft summary table of goals, measurable targets and monitoring strategy for determining success of mitigation and habitat restoration Bill Harrower, Regional Initiatives Office, Area measures. Manager, BC MFLNRO, South Coast Region, Surrey Rachel Mayberry, Environmental Assessment, Email August 29, 2016 ECCC acknowledged an error in their Written Evidence (EC 2015b) for Pacific water shrew. The The information has been incorporated into the Plan. Sections 1.5 and 3.3.2 ECCC sentence in italics was corrected. Within the mapped areas containing critical habitat locations that do not possess all of the biophysical attributes are not identified as critical habitat. It should have said: Within the mapped areas containing critical habitat locations that do not possess one or more of the biophysical attributes listed above are not identified as critical habitat. BC MFLNRO, BC OGC Meeting October 7, 2016 How have provincial wildlife habitat boundaries been taken into account? The plan appears to use The NEB Condition is specific to early draft, candidate, proposed and final critical habitat which N/A - NEB Condition 44 is specific to federal boundaries only. There are no 'Wildlife find" contingency plans. How has BC's list of "Important ECCC shared with Trans Mountain. species with early draft, candidate, Species" been identified? A Wildlife Species of Concern Encounter and Discovery Contingency Plan is provided as proposed and final critical habitat. Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP. Pacific water shrew is listed as a “High Priority Wildlife Species.” by the BC OGC. BC MFLNRO Meeting October 7, 2016 BC MFLNRO has a Stewardship Baseline Program on the South Coast, which sets management Trans Mountain asked BC MFLNRO (on December 9, 2016) if it was possible to receive N/A objectives for special species. It has map-based and has 30-40 resource values and objectives. This information on this Program for priority wildlife species of relevance to TMEP. BC MFLNRO should be utilized. responded (on December 13, 2016) that this program is in a highly prototypical stage, and is not yet ready for release, and perhaps would be ready at a later date (end of March 2017). BC OGC Meeting October 7, 2016 How have BC OGC's Environmental Management and Protection Regulation "High Priority Species" NEB Condition 44 is very specific to wildlife species with early draft, candidate, proposed and N/A - NEB Condition 44 is specific to been identified and incorporated into NEB's Condition Plans? final critical habitat as per the federal recovery process. The NEB has not asked for specific species with early draft, candidate, mitigation and habitat restoration plans for each additional information on the wildlife species proposed and final critical habitat. listed as BC OGCs “High Priority Wildlife Species”, with the exception of caribou, grizzly bear and spotted owl, which are covered by other NEB Condition Plans. Robyn Reudink, BC MFLNRO Thompson Webinar presentation February 16, 2017 Trans Mountain hosted a webinar to review the draft NEB Condition 44 Plans, as requested by BC Residual changes in habitat were assessed for a variety of wildlife species and species group Sections 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0 Okanagan Region, Ecosystem Section MFLNRO. BC MFLRNO requested detail on how residual effects would be quantified and how indicators in the Application and related filings. Residual effects assessments used regulatory and information from additional surveys would be incorporated into the Plans and provided to Project ecological context, quantitative and qualitative measures, and an accepted method for Contractors. characterizing residual effects. The NEB Condition 44 Plans do not repeat the entirety of the relevant species assessments; however, the locations on where this information can be found will be added. The focus of the NEB Condition 44 Plans is to avoid, minimize and restore habitat on- site as per the mitigation hierarchy. The goals and mitigation measures are designed to effectively alleviate or minimize residual Project effects. The performance indicators selected to measure and monitor the success of the mitigation and habitat restoration measures are intended to demonstrate that measurable targets have been met and therefore residual effects have been mitigated or reduced such that the survival or recovery of local populations are not adversely affected by the Project. Where field work has been completed to date, the NEB Condition 44 Plans provide the results of a review of the presence of biophysical attributes of critical habitat within the Project Footprint using the information provided by ECCC. Additional field work will be conducted prior to construction in areas that have not yet been reviewed to collect information on the presence of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat and assist in the determination of locations for site-specific mitigation implementation. Mitigation will be implemented in areas where the biophysical attributes of critical habitat are present. Results of additional field work will be provided to Contractors in an internal deliverable. They will also be reported in the PCEM program reports in the first, third and fifth years following completion of reclamation activities. After the fifth growing season, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the measurable targets after implementation of mitigation and any corrective actions will be provided. This will determine what residual effects remain (if any) and assist Appropriate Regulatory Authorities in determining whether an acceptable level of Project impact for which no additional mitigation would be needed has been achieved. Township of Langley Email April 11, 2017 • Langley notes that the following wildlife species at risk have been encountered in Langley, Acknowledged. Trans Mountain has consulted with both federal and provincial regulators on N/A although not necessarily in the pipeline corridor: these plans.

• barn owl; • Oregon forestsnail; • Oregon spotted frog; and • Pacific water shrew.

Langley defers to federal and provincial regulations and enforcement for risk mitigation and habitat restoration of wildlife species at risk.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

3.3 Aboriginal Engagement Since April 2012, Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal communities that might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project, based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the pipeline corridor to maintain a traditional lifestyle. The objectives of Aboriginal engagement are to:

• have an open, transparent and inclusive process that seeks to exchange information in a respectful manner;

• address concerns shared by those who might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project;

• incorporate feedback into Project planning and execution; and

• provide opportunities to maximize Project benefits to Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups.

A comprehensive Aboriginal engagement process is led by experienced engagement advisors in Alberta and BC, specialized in the areas of Aboriginal relations, law, economic development, education, training, employment and procurement. Trans Mountain’s engagement process for the Project is flexible, allowing each community and group to engage in meaningful dialogue in the manner they choose and in a way to meet their objectives and values.

Each community had the opportunity to engage with Trans Mountain, depending on Project interests and potential effects. The following opportunities to engage have been provided:

• Project announcement;

• initial contact with Aboriginal community or Aboriginal group;

• meetings with Chief and Council and meetings with staff;

• host community information session(s);

• conduct TLU studies and socio-economic interviews;

• identify interests and concerns; and

• identify mitigation options.

There were no issues or concerns specific to Pacific water shrew raised during Project Aboriginal engagement to date. Issues and concerns specific to wildlife species at risk raised during Aboriginal engagement between early 2012 to February 2017 are summarized in Table B-4 (note that the Table below is focused on species at risk and thus does not include issues or concerns that are generally related to wildlife or wildlife habitat).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-9

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

TABLE B-4

SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL CONCERNS REGARDING WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK

Issue or Concern Summary Aboriginal Group Summary Trans Mountain Response Where Addressed Effects on species at risk Adams Lake Indian Band NEB Condition 44 requires Trans Mountain to file Wildlife Sections 7.2.10 and Canim Lake Band (Tsq’escen') Species at Risk Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans for 7.2.11 of Volume 5A of Coldwater Indian Band each species whose draft, candidate, proposed, or final critical the ESA. (Nlaka’pamux Nation) habitat is directly or indirectly affected by the Project. Lower Nicola Indian Band Pipeline EPP (Volume 2 (Nlaka’pamux Nation) NEB Condition 92 requires Trans Mountain to report on of the Environmental Neskonlith Indian Band updates under the SARA of any new Schedule 1 listings or new Plans). Nicola Tribal Association or amended Recovery Strategies, Action Plans and (Shackan Indian Band, Nooaitch Management Plans for species that have potential to be Resource-Specific Indian Band and Nicomen Indian affected by the Project. Mitigation Tables Band) (Volume 7 of the Shackan Indian Band Available least risk work windows and setback guidelines Environmental Plans). (Nlaka’pamux Nation) provided by available and relevant guidelines and best Musqueam First Nation management practices to mitigate Project effects on wildlife Wildlife Species at Risk Lheidli T’enneh First Nation species at risk. Mitigation and Habitat Lhtako Dene Nation Restoration Plans (Section 6.0 of Volume 6 Effects on provincially Skeetchestn Indian Band of the Environmental red and blue listed Tk’emlups te Secwépemc Plans) species found in the (Kamloops) Project area that Skeetchestn Indian Band and Tk’emlups te Secwépemc (Kamloops) uses for ceremonial and spiritual purposes as well as for food, medicine, ecological indicators, clothing, stories and trade. Issues and concerns Ermineskin First Nation Measures to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat within the Not applicable to Pacific regarding night bird Project Footprint are addressed in the EPPs, specifically the water shrew. General counts and wildlife Pipeline EPP (Volume 2 of the Environmental Plans), Resource wildlife mitigation is Specific Mitigation Tables (Volume 7 of the Environmental provided in the other Plans), the Wildlife Species of Concern Encounter and plans listed. Discovery Contingency Plan Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP).

Trans Mountain will review the Environmental Alignments Sheets with Ermineskin Cree Nation and provide an overview of cultural sites and medicinal plant sites on the project footprint. Issues and concerns Métis Nation of Alberta Gunn Measures to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat within the Not applicable to Pacific regarding wildlife and Metis Local #55 Project Footprint are addressed in the EPPs, specifically the water shrew. General plants Pipeline EPP (Volume 2 of the Environmental Plans), Resource wildlife mitigation is Specific Mitigation Tables (Volume 7 of the Environmental provided in the other Plans), the Wildlife Species of Concern Encounter and plans listed. Discovery Contingency Plan Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP).

Trans Mountain continues to liaise with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, the GoC’s Major Projects Management Office, the BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and the Alberta Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to provide updates regarding Trans Mountain’s engagement activities with Aboriginal groups.

Identifying Aboriginal Groups for Consultation Trans Mountain used the First Nations Consultative Area Database Public Map Service to identify the Aboriginal groups with traditional territories that cross critical habitat for Pacific water shrew. Listed below are the Aboriginal groups identified for consultation. Throughout regular engagement with TMEP, any Aboriginal groups were added to the list if they identified Pacific water shrew or their habitat as a concern:

• Cowichan Tribes;

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-10

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

• Halalt First Nation;

• Katzie First Nation;

• Kwantlen First Nation (Stó:lō);

• Lake Cowichan First Nation;

• Leq’á:mel First Nation (Stó:lō);

• Lyackson First Nation;

• Matsqui First Nation (Stó:lō);

• Penelakut First Nation;

• Seabird Island Band (Stó:lō);

• Semiahmoo First Nation;

• Shxw’ōwhámel First Nation (Stó:lō);

• Skawahlook First Nation (Stó:lō);

• Soowahlie Indian Band (Stó:lō);

• Stz'uminus First Nation;

• Sumas First Nation (Stó:lō); and

• Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

Consultation Activities A letter was sent to the Aboriginal groups listed above with a copy of the draft Plan in September 2016. Where appropriate and upon request, a follow up meeting was arranged to discuss this Plan in more detail and address any concerns. No feedback specific to this Plan was received.

Trans Mountain has summarized the feedback received through Trans Mountain’s engagement on this Plan and wildlife species at risk in Table B-4 and the summary includes how Trans Mountain responded to and addressed the concern or issue. It should be noted that although the engagement process also provided for opportunities for general discussion about Project construction and associated Aboriginal issues and opportunities; only feedback/issues directly related to Pacific water shrew and wildlife species at risk are provided in this Plan. Other issues and topics raised have been captured in the corresponding mitigation plan as appropriate.

This final Plan will be shared with the Aboriginal communities at the same time as it is filed with the NEB in 2017.

3.4 Landowners/Tenants Trans Mountain has implemented a comprehensive landowner engagement process for the TMEP to:

• ensure landowners are informed of the Project and how it may affect them;

• enable landowners to gain an understanding of their rights under the NEB Act, and the regulatory process and their opportunities for comment within the NEB regulatory process; and

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-11

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

• have a number of opportunities to discuss the Project, identify my concerns or questions they may have with the project, and have those questions and concerns addressed by Trans Mountain.

In addition to these opportunities for engagement, Trans Mountain is required to provide formal notifications of landowners under Sections 87 and 34 of the NEB Act, and Trans Mountain has or will, at the appropriate time, provide such notices.

Individual landowners and tenants have different preferences with respect to communications, and Trans Mountain tailors its communications as requested. Land representatives working for Trans Mountain have been in discussions with landowners for over three years and issues or concerns raised with land agents have been documented in the Project landowner database, addressed within site specific construction plans and documented within the land rights agreements. Trans Mountain has filed reports with the NEB providing details on the landowner engagement program and results to date. In accordance with NEB Condition 99, records of engagement and consultation with landowners and tenants will be filed with the NEB at least two months prior to commencing construction and every six months thereafter until five years after commencing Project operations.

Trans Mountain’s landowner/tenant consultation strategy includes the activities described below.

1. Prior to Project approval - obtain landowner permission for survey, provide information on the project and landowner rights, provide copies of land agreement documents to the landowners for their review and consideration, dialogue with each landowner to answer questions and address concerns raised by landowners, provide Project updates, and disseminate any other information necessary to satisfy landowner requests and regulatory requirements. After addressing outstanding questions and issues, obtain land agreements from landowners voluntarily. Land agreements have and will address specific landowner concerns regarding construction and reclamation activity. 2. After obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the NEB, Trans Mountain will provide Section 34 notices indicating the detailed route for the pipeline and the specific lands affected by the Project, and complete any additional regulatory procedures required prior to commencement of construction, including providing reasonable notice through land agents of commencement date and activities. Trans Mountain land representatives will continue to maintain contact with landowners through construction to answer questions and address any issues that may arise. Following construction, maintain communication with landowners to discuss reclamation activities and timing. Upon completion of reclamation, Trans Mountain will transition the Project land program to operations.

Respecting this Plan, Trans Mountain notified landowners by letter in September 2016 that NEB Condition plans were being released for consultation and feedback. The landowner notification letter requested that landowners review the plans available on the TMEP website, or alternatively contact their assigned land representative or Trans Mountain directly if they wished to receive hard copies of the plans to review. No responses or requests for copies of the plans were received by Trans Mountain and no concerns or questions about the plans were expressed by landowners.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page B-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

APPENDIX C

RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER NOTIFICATIONS OF PLAN

Regulator/Stakeholder Group Contact Name (if applicable) Date Method of Contact Landowners N/A September 11, 2016 Letter Aboriginal Groups (please refer to Appendix A) N/A September 26, 2016 Letter Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Tim Blair September 20, 2016 Email Jasper National Park of Canada Mayabe Dia September 20, 2016 Email Alberta Environment and Parks Corinee Kristensen September 20, 2016 Email Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Lisa Gow September 20, 2016 Email BC Parks Ken Morrison September 20, 2016 Email BC OGC Brian Murphy September 20, 2016 Email Ministry of Natural Gas Development Linda Beltrano September 20, 2016 Email Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Andrea Mah December 22, 2016 Email Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Susan Fitton September 20, 2016 Email Fraser Valley Air Quality Coordinating Committee Roger Quan October 21, 2016 Email ECCC Phil Wong October 21, 2016 Email ECCC Rachel Mayberry October 28, 2016 Email ECCC Coral Deshield December 21, 2016 Email ECCC Phil Wong December 21, 2016 Email Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Patrick Coates September 20, 2016 Email Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sandra Hollick-Kenyon December 3, 2016 Email Department of Fisheries and Oceans Alston Bonamis December 3, 2016 Email City of Edmonton N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Spruce Grove N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Municipality of Jasper N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Parkland County N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Strathcona County N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Edson N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Hinton N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Stony Plain N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Wabamun N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Yellowhead County N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Kamloops N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Kamloops RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Hotel Association N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Merritt N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Merritt RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Clearwater Employment Services N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Tourism Wells Grey N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Clearwater Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of Clearwater N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of Clearwater RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Interior Health N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Merritt Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Northern Health N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Regional District of Fraser Fort George N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Thompson Nicola Regional District N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Town of Blue River N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Venture Kamloops N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Valemount N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Valemount RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Valley District N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Valemount Learning Centre N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Work Skills BC- Valemount N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page C-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Regulator/Stakeholder Group Contact Name (if applicable) Date Method of Contact Valemount and Area Recreational Development Association N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Valemount Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Grassland’s Conservation Council N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Police Department N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Soils Conservation Association N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Invasive Species N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Ministry of Children and Family Development N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Ministry of Social Development N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Nature N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Wildlife Federation N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby Board of Trade N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Chilliwack Economic Partners N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Abbotsford N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Burnaby N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Chilliwack N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Coquitlam N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of New Westminster N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Port Coquitlam N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Port Moody N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter City of Surrey N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Coquitlam RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Corporation of Delta N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of Hope N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Eagle Creek N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Valley Invasive Plant Council N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Valley Regional District N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Glen Valley Watershed Society N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Hope Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Hope Community Policing Office N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Langley Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Langley environmental Partners Society N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Coordinating Committee N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Metro Vancouver N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Newton RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter RCMP Division ‘E’ N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Sapperton Fish and Game N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Stoney Creek N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Surrey Board of Trade N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Surry Environmental Partners N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Surrey RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Township of Langley N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Township of Langley RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter TriCities Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Upper Fraser Valley Regional Detachment N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Anmore N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Village of Belcarra N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Yorkson N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter ACGI Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Barnett Marine Park N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Ambulance N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Chamber of Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter BC Coast Pilots N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Canadian Pacific Rail N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page C-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Pacific Water Shrew Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project 687945/May 2017

Regulator/Stakeholder Group Contact Name (if applicable) Date Method of Contact Canexus- Ero- Newalta-Univar Community Advisory Panal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Canexus Chemicals N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Chevron N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Canadian National Rail N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Council of Marine Carriers N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter District of North Vancouver N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Empire Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Erco Worldwide N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter First Nation Emergency Services Society N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter First Nation Health Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Health Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Inchcape Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Island Tug and Barge N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Kask Brothers N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Ledcor Resources and Transportation Limited Partnership N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Mason Agency (Shipping Service) N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) – Burnaby Lougheed N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – Burnaby North N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – Coquitlam – Burke Mountain N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA - North Vancouver Lonsdale N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – North Vancouver Seymour N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MLA – Port Moody - Coquitlam N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Member of Parliament (MP) – Delta N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – North Burnaby Seymour N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – North Vancouver N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – Vancouver Centre N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – Vancouver East N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – Vancouver Quadra N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter MP – West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter North Shore NOPE N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Coast Terminal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Pilotage Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Wildlife Foundation N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Peter Kiewit Infrastructure Co. N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Seaspan N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Shell Terminal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Simon Fraser University N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter SMIT Marine N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Suncor Terminal N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter UBC Stellar Sea Lion (Marine Mammal) Research Centre N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Aquarium N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Board of Trade N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Coastal Health Authority N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Pile and Dredge N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Westward Shipping N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Wild Bird Trust N/A September 19 to 23, 2016 Letter Metro Vancouver Regional District Ali Ergudenler September 19 to 23, 2016 Email Metro Vancouver Regional District Roger Quan September 19 to 23, 2016 Email

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0022 Page C-3